Gap finder
Search review questions
Each row is one question a systematic review asked: who, what, compared with what, and which outcome, with the effect it found and how certain that is. Words match anywhere in the field.
264 questions in 10 reviews · Other oral health
current versionsNo studies 45 · 17%Ungraded 127 · 48.1%Very low 24 · 9.1%Low 46 · 17.4%Moderate 13 · 4.9%High 9 · 3.4%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
| Question | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical examination with 24-month recall vs Clinical examination with 12-month recall Oral-health-related quality of life · Regular-attending primary-care dental patients aged 3, 16 or 18 years at entry (aged up to 20; low caries risk) · 2 years Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients (2020) · Cochrane | Summary of findings 1 lists 'Oral-health-related quality of life: Not reported' for the 24-month versus 12-month comparison (Wang 1992 did not measure it). | 0 studies | No studies |
Clinical examination with risk-based recall vs Clinical examination with 6-month recall Periodontal disease: probing pocket depth (mm) · Dentate adults (aged 18 years and older) receiving dental check-ups in UK general dental practices (regular attenders) · 4 years Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients (2020) · Cochrane | MD 0.03 [-0.01, 0.07] | 1 study · 1463 participants | High |
Clinical examination with risk-based recall vs Clinical examination with 6-month recall Dental caries: prevalence of moderate to extensive caries (ICDAS 3-6) · Dentate adults (aged 18 years and older) receiving dental check-ups in UK general dental practices (regular attenders) · 4 years Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients (2020) · Cochrane | RR 1.04 [0.99, 1.09] | 1 study · 1478 participants | Moderate |
Clinical examination with risk-based recall vs Clinical examination with 6-month recall Oral-health-related quality of life (OHIP-14) · Dentate adults (aged 18 years and older) receiving dental check-ups in UK general dental practices (regular attenders) · 4 years Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients (2020) · Cochrane | MD -0.35 [-1.02, 0.32] | 1 study · 1551 participants | High |
Clinical examination with risk-based recall vs Clinical examination with 6-month recall Dental caries: number of tooth surfaces with any caries (ICDAS 1-6) · Dentate adults (aged 18 years and older) receiving dental check-ups in UK general dental practices (regular attenders) · 4 years Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients (2020) · Cochrane | MD 0.15 [-0.77, 1.08] | 1 study · 1478 participants | High |
Clinical examination with risk-based recall vs Clinical examination with 24-month recall Dental caries: prevalence of root caries · Dentate adults (aged 18 years and older) receiving dental check-ups in UK general dental practices (regular attenders) · 4 years Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients (2020) · Cochrane | RR 1.21 [0.72, 2.03] | 1 study · 247 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical examination with 24-month recall vs Clinical examination with 12-month recall Total time (examination plus treatment) (minutes) · Regular-attending primary-care dental patients aged 3, 16 or 18 years at entry (aged up to 20; low caries risk) · 2 years, 16-20 year olds (permanent teeth) Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients (2020) · Cochrane | MD -23.7 [-43.28, -4.12] | 1 study · 127 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical examination with 24-month recall vs Clinical examination with 6-month recall Dental caries: prevalence of root caries · Dentate adults (aged 18 years and older) receiving dental check-ups in UK general dental practices (regular attenders) · 4 years Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients (2020) · Cochrane | RR 1.17 [0.65, 2.11] | 1 study · 238 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical examination with 24-month recall vs Clinical examination with 12-month recall Dental caries: DMFS increment (permanent teeth) · Regular-attending primary-care dental patients aged 3, 16 or 18 years at entry (aged up to 20; low caries risk) · 2 years, 16-20 year olds (permanent teeth) Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients (2020) · Cochrane | MD 0.86 [-0.03, 1.75] | 1 study · 127 participants | Very low |
No recall interval / patient-driven attendance vs A fixed recall interval Outcome NR · Children and adults receiving dental check-ups in primary care, irrespective of oral disease risk Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients (2020) · Cochrane | No studies identified comparing no-recall/patient-driven attendance with a fixed recall interval. | 0 studies | No studies |
Clinical examination with risk-based recall vs Clinical examination with 24-month recall Dental caries: prevalence of moderate to extensive caries (ICDAS 3-6) · Dentate adults (aged 18 years and older) receiving dental check-ups in UK general dental practices (regular attenders) · 4 years Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients (2020) · Cochrane | RR 1.06 [0.95, 1.19] | 1 study · 279 participants | Moderate |
Clinical examination with risk-based recall vs Clinical examination with 6-month recall Oral health knowledge (1-9 scale) · Dentate adults (aged 18 years and older) receiving dental check-ups in UK general dental practices (regular attenders) · 4 years Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients (2020) · Cochrane | MD -0.01 [-0.03, 0.01] | 1 study · 1604 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical examination with 24-month recall vs Clinical examination with 6-month recall Oral health knowledge (1-9 scale) · Dentate adults (aged 18 years and older) receiving dental check-ups in UK general dental practices (regular attenders) · 4 years Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients (2020) · Cochrane | MD -0.01 [-0.05, 0.03] | 1 study · 308 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical examination with risk-based recall vs Clinical examination with 24-month recall Dental caries: number of tooth surfaces with any caries (ICDAS 1-6) · Dentate adults (aged 18 years and older) receiving dental check-ups in UK general dental practices (regular attenders) · 4 years Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients (2020) · Cochrane | MD 1.40 [-0.69, 3.49] | 1 study · 279 participants | Moderate |
Clinical examination with risk-based recall vs Clinical examination with 24-month recall Cost (patient perspective): total cost per patient (GBP) · Dentate adults (aged 18 years and older) receiving dental check-ups in UK general dental practices (regular attenders) · 4 years Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients (2020) · Cochrane | MD 34.00 [9.78, 58.22] | 1 study · 375 participants | Ungraded |
ADMG + CAF vs CAF Occurrence of adverse effects or postoperative complications · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | Ahmedbeyli 2014: patients rated ADMG + CAF and CAF equally for pain during surgery, discomfort, postsurgical pain/swelling and complications | 1 study | Ungraded |
GTR rm + CAF vs SCTG + CAF Occurrence of adverse effects or postoperative complications · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | Wang 2001: two patients treated with SCTG experienced adverse effects (one postsurgical swelling, one postsurgical ecchymosis) | 1 study | Ungraded |
GTR rm + CAF vs GTR nrm + CAF Clinical attachment level change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | MD 0.12 [-0.37, 0.60] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Pedicled buccal fat pad flap (PBFPF) vs Buccal flap (BF) Adverse effects of treatment failure (such as graft necrosis and rejection or chronic sinusitis) · People of any age with oro-antral communications, fistulae, or both caused by dental procedures Interventions for treating oro‐antral communications and fistulae due to dental procedures (2018) · Cochrane | None reported as there were no treatment failures. | 1 study · 20 participants | Ungraded |
Surgical technique vs Non-surgical technique Outcome NR · People of any age with oro-antral communications, fistulae, or both caused by dental procedures Interventions for treating oro‐antral communications and fistulae due to dental procedures (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 0 studies | No studies |
EMP + CAF vs CAF Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | Sangiorgio 2017 (VAS): root coverage aesthetics and overall aesthetic results showed similar/equivalent outcomes for EMP + CAF and CAF | 1 study | Ungraded |
Surgical technique vs No treatment Outcome NR · People of any age with oro-antral communications, fistulae, or both caused by dental procedures Interventions for treating oro‐antral communications and fistulae due to dental procedures (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 0 studies | No studies |
GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF vs GTR rm + CAF Keratinized tissue width change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | MD 0.23 [-0.21, 0.68] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
XCM + CAF vs CAF Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | Sangiorgio 2017 (VAS): root coverage aesthetics and overall aesthetic results were similar for XCM + CAF and CAF, irrespective of the treatment applied | 1 study | Low |
EMP + CAF vs CAF Keratinized tissue width change (short and medium term) · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short and medium term (6 to 24 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | MD 0.40 [0.17, 0.62] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
EMP + CAF vs CAF Gingival recession depth change (short and medium term) · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short and medium term (6 to 24 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | MD 0.32 [0.10, 0.55] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
GTR rm + CAF vs GTR nrm + CAF Keratinized tissue width change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | MD 0.12 [-0.23, 0.48] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
GTR rm + CAF vs SCTG + CAF Clinical attachment level change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | MD 0.35 [0.06, 0.63] | 3 studies · 98 participants | Low |
GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF vs GTR rm + CAF Gingival recession depth change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | MD 0.48 [0.09, 0.88] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
PRF + CAF vs SCTG + CAF Keratinized tissue width change · Adult patients with multiple recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | MD -0.26 [-0.98, 0.45] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
EMP + CAF vs SCTG + CAF Sites with complete root coverage · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short and medium term (6 to 24 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | OR 0.61 [0.05, 7.86] | 2 studies · 62 participants | Very low |
ADMG + CAF vs CAF Sites with complete root coverage · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | OR 3.97 [0.20, 80.50] | 2 studies · 50 participants | Very low |
GTR rm + CAF vs SCTG + CAF Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion: Not reported (SoF 5) | 0 studies | No studies |
GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF vs GTR rm + CAF Sites with complete root coverage · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | OR 1.87 [0.75, 4.64] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
GTR rm + CAF vs SCTG + CAF Gingival recession change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | MD -0.37 [-0.60, -0.13] | 3 studies · 98 participants | Low |
XCM + CAF vs CAF Sites with complete root coverage · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | OR 4.73 [2.35, 9.50] | 2 studies · 104 participants | Low |
PRF + CAF vs SCTG + CAF Occurrence of adverse effects or postoperative complications · Adult patients with multiple recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | Oncu 2017: VAS showed less discomfort during the first postoperative week for PRF + CAF compared to SCTG + CAF | 1 study | Ungraded |
PRF + CAF vs SCTG + CAF Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion · Adult patients with multiple recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | Aesthetic condition change was not reported for this comparison | 0 studies | No studies |
ADMG + CAF vs SCTG + CAF Keratinized tissue change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | MD -0.59 [-1.27, 0.10] | 4 studies · 100 participants | Very low |
Non-surgical technique vs No treatment Outcome NR · People of any age with oro-antral communications, fistulae, or both caused by dental procedures Interventions for treating oro‐antral communications and fistulae due to dental procedures (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 0 studies | No studies |
ADMG + CAF vs CAF Keratinized tissue width change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | MD 0.28 [-0.08, 0.64] | 2 studies · 50 participants | Low |
ADMG + CAF vs CAF Gingival recession depth change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | MD 0.61 [-0.52, 1.73] | 2 studies · 50 participants | Low |
ADMG + CAF vs SCTG + CAF Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion: Not reported (SoF main comparison) | 0 studies | No studies |
EMP + CAF vs SCTG + CAF Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · 10 years Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | McGuire 2012 (10 years after surgery): 6 patients had no preference for a particular treatment, 2 favoured EMD + CAF, 1 favoured SCTG + CAF (P=0.564) | 1 study | Very low |
GTR rm + CAF vs GTR nrm + CAF Gingival recession depth change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | MD 0.23 [-0.22, 0.68] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF vs GTR rm + CAF Occurrence of adverse effects or postoperative complications · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | Dodge 2000: membrane exposure reported between the first and second weeks of healing | 1 study | Ungraded |
ADMG + CAF vs SCTG + CAF Gingival recession change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | MD -0.36 [-1.03, 0.30] | 4 studies · 100 participants | Low |
GTR rm + CAF vs GTR nrm + CAF Patients' preference for a specific procedure · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | Roccuzzo 1996: all patients preferred the GTR treatment because it was a single-step procedure | 1 study | Ungraded |
Laterally positioned flap (LPF) vs Any other root coverage procedure Outcome NR · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | We did not find any RCTs evaluating laterally positioned flaps (LPF) | 0 studies | No studies |
GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF vs SCTG + CAF Gingival recession depth change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane | MD -0.82 [-2.13, 0.49] | 2 studies | Ungraded |