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.
664 questions in 25 reviews · Endodontics and dental trauma
current versionsNo studies 111 · 16.7%Ungraded 417 · 62.8%Very low 69 · 10.4%Low 50 · 7.5%Moderate 16 · 2.4%High 1 · 0.2%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Composite strip crowns with composite, fiber, or reverse metal posts vs Alternative post type Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy · 1 year, Composite post (CP) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | Annual failure rate (AFR, %) 2.3 | 1 study · 54 participants | Ungraded |
Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) restoration vs Amalgam, compomer, composite resin, or glass carbomer Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years · 12-48 months Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 1.9-16.9% | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Pulpotomy (partial or full) vs None (single-arm pooled success proportion) Clinical and radiographic success rate (>=6 months) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis (symptomatic and asymptomatic) due to carious pulp exposure · >=6 months, Observational studies (GRADE evidence profile) Outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2022) | Proportion 0.926 [0.86, 0.96] | 6 studies · 177 participants | Very low |
Pulpotomy with Calcium Enriched Mixture (CEM) vs Pulpotomy with calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) Clinical and radiographic success rate (>=6 months) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis due to carious pulp exposure · >=6 months, Pulp capping material: CEM vs calcium hydroxide Outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2022) | No significant difference was observed between CEM and calcium hydroxide (indirect comparison; Supplementary Table S5, not available). | NR | Ungraded |
Nanoionomer resin-modified GIC vs HVGIC Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1 year, ART; Class I Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) RMGIC 2.0%; HVGIC 12.8% | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Compomer (C) vs Composite resin (CR) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy) · 2 years, Compomer (C) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 8.9 | 1 study · 84 participants | Ungraded |
Composite resin vs Compomer Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy · 2 years Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | Annual failure rate (AFR, %) 0 | 1 study · 84 participants | Ungraded |
Pulpotomy (partial or full) vs None (single-arm pooled success proportion) Clinical and radiographic success rate (>=6 months) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis (symptomatic and asymptomatic) due to carious pulp exposure · >=6 months, Randomized trials (GRADE evidence profile) Outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2022) | Proportion 0.743 [0.56, 0.86] | 5 studies · 488 participants | Very low |
Amalgam vs Composite resin Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 2 years, Class II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) amalgam 17.5%; composite resin 6.2% | 1 study · 43 participants | Ungraded |
Composite resin with etch-and-rinse (total-etch) adhesion vs Composite resin with self-etch adhesion (same universal adhesive) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with moderately deep dentine caries in primary molars, no pulp therapy · 18 months (Lenzi 2017), Adhesive strategy (etch-and-rinse vs self-etch) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) etch-and-rinse 19.5%; self-etch 7.0% | 1 study · 44 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam restoration vs Composite resin, compomer, conventional glass-ionomer cement, or resin-modified GIC (head-to-head RCT comparators) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years · 12-60 months follow-up (4 trials; 1-5 years) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 1-28% | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Composite strip crown (CSC) with a post (microhybrid composite resin, Amelogen) vs Post type: composite post (CP) vs fibre post (FP) vs reverse metal post (RMP) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with severely decayed maxillary primary incisors treated by pulpectomy (non-vital pulp therapy) · 1 year, Composite post (CP) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 2.3 | 1 study · 54 participants | Ungraded |
Resin-modified GIC vs Composite resin Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 2 years, Class II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) RMGIC 8.4%; composite resin 8.4% | 1 study · 55 participants | Ungraded |
Pulpotomy (partial or full) vs None (single-arm pooled success proportion) Clinical and radiographic success rate (>=6 months) · Human permanent teeth with asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis due to carious pulp exposure · >=6 months, Asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis Outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2022) | Proportion 0.913 [0.80, 0.965] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Pulpotomy with Biodentine vs Pulpotomy with Calcium Enriched Mixture (CEM) Clinical and radiographic success rate (>=6 months) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis due to carious pulp exposure · >=6 months, Pulp capping material: Biodentine vs CEM Outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2022) | Biodentine demonstrated a statistically significantly higher success rate than CEM (indirect comparison; Supplementary Table S5, not available). | NR | Ungraded |
Pulpotomy with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Pulpotomy with Calcium Enriched Mixture (CEM) Clinical and radiographic success rate (>=6 months) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis due to carious pulp exposure · >=6 months, Pulp capping material: MTA vs CEM Outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2022) | MTA was not significantly superior to CEM (no significant difference; Supplementary Table S5, not available). | NR | Ungraded |
Single-visit root canal treatment vs Multiple-visit root canal treatment (two or more visits) Postoperative pain in the immediate postobturation period (up to 72 hours) · People aged 10 years or above requiring root canal treatment; permanent teeth with completely formed apex and without… · Up to 72 hours postobturation Single versus multiple visits for endodontic treatment of permanent teeth (2022) · Cochrane | RR 0.97 [0.81, 1.16] | 12 studies · 1329 participants | Low |
Single-visit root canal treatment vs Multiple-visit root canal treatment (two or more visits) Tooth extraction due to endodontic problems · People aged 10 years or above requiring root canal treatment; permanent teeth with completely formed apex and without… Single versus multiple visits for endodontic treatment of permanent teeth (2022) · Cochrane | RR 0.46 [0.09, 2.50] | 2 studies · 402 participants | Very low |
Amalgam vs Resin-modified GIC Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1 year, Class II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) amalgam 28.0%; RMGIC 16.9% | 1 study · 120 participants | Ungraded |
Bulk-fill composite resin with 15-second dentine etching vs Bulk-fill composite resin with 7-second dentine etching Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1.5 years Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 15 s 16.9%; 7 s 5.8% | 1 study · 62 participants | Ungraded |
Pulpotomy with Biodentine vs Pulpotomy with calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) Clinical and radiographic success rate (>=6 months) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis due to carious pulp exposure · >=6 months, Pulp capping material: Biodentine vs calcium hydroxide Outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2022) | Biodentine demonstrated a statistically significantly higher success rate than calcium hydroxide (indirect comparison; Supplementary Table S5, not available). | NR | Ungraded |
Single-visit root canal treatment vs Multiple-visit root canal treatment (two or more visits) Swelling or flare-up · People aged 10 years or above requiring root canal treatment; permanent teeth with completely formed apex and without… Single versus multiple visits for endodontic treatment of permanent teeth (2022) · Cochrane | RR 0.56 [0.16, 1.92] | 6 studies · 605 participants | Very low |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) restoration (conventional restorative approach) vs Compomer, composite resin, or another HVGIC Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years · 12-36 months Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 2.9-25.6% | 3 studies | Ungraded |
HVGIC Fuji IX Gold Label vs HVGIC Vitro Molar and Maxxion R Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 2 years, ART; Class I Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) Fuji IX 14.7%; Vitro Molar 31.8%; Maxxion R 37.1% | 1 study · 150 participants | Ungraded |
Composite resin vs HVGIC Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 2 years, ART; Class I and II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) HVGIC 5.9%; composite resin 6.7% (cumulative) | 1 study · 219 participants | Ungraded |
HVGIC Ketac Molar vs Conventional GIC Vitro Molar Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1 year, ART; Class I, II, III, and V Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) HVGIC 17.8%; GIC 26.6% | 1 study · 244 participants | Ungraded |
Selective caries removal (SCR) + composite resin vs Complete caries removal (CCR) + composite resin Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with deep dentine caries in primary molars restored with composite resin (indirect pulp treatment; pulpotomy… · 36 months, Complete caries removal (CCR) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 6.8 | 1 study · 48 participants | Ungraded |
Preformed metal crowns vs Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement plus composite resin Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy · 2 years Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | Annual failure rate (AFR, %) 2.5 | 1 study · 87 participants | Ungraded |
Compomer (C) vs Composite resin (CR) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy) · 2 years, Composite resin (CR) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 0 | 1 study · 84 participants | Ungraded |
Composite resin with a beveled cavity margin vs Composite resin with no bevel (butt-joint margin) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with Class-I carious lesions in primary molars, no pulp therapy · 18 months (Oliveira 2008), Cavity margin (bevel vs no bevel) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) bevel 1.8%; no bevel 3.5% | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Conventional GIC vs Compomer and glass carbomer Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 3 years, ART; Class I and II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) GIC 17.5%; compomer 17.5%; glass carbomer 28.7% (cumulative) | 1 study · 568 participants | Ungraded |
Single-visit root canal treatment vs Multiple-visit root canal treatment (two or more visits) Analgesic (painkiller) use · People aged 10 years or above requiring root canal treatment; permanent teeth with completely formed apex and without… Single versus multiple visits for endodontic treatment of permanent teeth (2022) · Cochrane | RR 1.25 [0.75, 2.09] | 6 studies · 540 participants | Very low |
Restorative materials placed by atraumatic restorative treatment (ART); mostly high-viscosity/conventional GIC, also RMGIC, glass carbomer, compomer, composite resin vs Different ART materials or application techniques (e.g., bilayer vs single-step, with vs without cavity conditioner/disinfectant), or composite resin Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary teeth treated by atraumatic restorative treatment (hand-instrument caries removal), no… · 12-48 months, Restorative technique (ART) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 1.2-37.1% | 10 studies | Ungraded |
HVGIC vs Composite resin Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 3 years, Class II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) HVGIC 6.1%; composite resin 1.7% | 1 study · 87 participants | Ungraded |
Preformed metal crown (PMC) vs Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement + composite resin (modified open-sandwich restoration) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy) · 2 years, PMC arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 2.5 | 1 study · 87 participants | Ungraded |
HVGIC Fuji IX vs HVGIC Amalgomer CR Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1 year, ART; Class I and II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) Fuji IX 9.0%; Amalgomer CR 4.0% (cumulative) | 1 study · 100 participants | Ungraded |
Single-visit root canal treatment vs Multiple-visit root canal treatment (two or more visits) Pain at two weeks (postobturation) · People aged 10 years or above requiring root canal treatment; permanent teeth with completely formed apex and without… · Two weeks postobturation Single versus multiple visits for endodontic treatment of permanent teeth (2022) · Cochrane | RR 0.56 [0.07, 4.69] | 2 studies · 288 participants | Ungraded |
HVGIC with chlorhexidine cavity disinfectant vs HVGIC without cavity disinfectant Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 2 years, ART; Class I and II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) without disinfectant 9.1%; with disinfectant 11.1% (cumulative) | 1 study · 126 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam vs Conventional GIC Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 5 years, Class I and II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) amalgam 4.4%; conventional GIC 7.6% | 1 study · 76 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam vs Compomer Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 2 years, Class II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) amalgam 1.0%; compomer 1.0% | 1 study · 75 participants | Ungraded |
Compomer vs HVGIC Equia Forte and Chemfil Rock Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1 year, Class II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) compomer 3.6%; HVGIC 25.6% and 13.4% | 1 study · 63 participants | Ungraded |
Bulk-fill composite resin with 7-second dentine etching vs Bulk-fill composite resin with 15-second dentine etching Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children (aged 5-8 years) with Class-II caries in primary molars, no pulp therapy · 18 months (Cavalheiro 2020), Dentine etching time (7 s vs 15 s) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 15 s 16.9%; 7 s 5.8% | 1 study · 62 participants | Ungraded |
Bio-active restorative materials vs Other restorative approaches Clinical effectiveness · Children with carious primary teeth · At least 12 months Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | no estimate extracted | 0 studies | No studies |
Zirconia crown vs Composite strip crown (filled with hybrid composite) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children (aged 3-5.5 years) with early childhood caries in anterior primary teeth (>=2 carious surfaces), no pulp… · 12 months (Alaki 2020) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) zirconia crown 3.3%; composite strip crown 15.0% | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Pulpotomy (partial or full) vs None (single-arm pooled success proportion) Clinical and radiographic success rate (>=6 months) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis (symptomatic and asymptomatic) due to carious pulp exposure · >=6 months, Trim-and-fill adjusted for publication bias Outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2022) | Proportion 0.786 [0.66, 0.87] | 15 (11 observed + 4 imputed) studies | Ungraded |
Compomer vs Composite resin Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1 year, Class I, II, III, and V Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) compomer 1.7%; composite resin 1.7% | 1 study · 36 participants | Ungraded |
Bio-active restorative materials (containing bio-active compounds) vs Any conventional restorative material Treatment failure (planned; no eligible studies) · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | No studies were found that reported on the use of restorative materials containing bio-active compounds for the restoration of carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy. | 0 studies | No studies |
Metal-reinforced glass-ionomer cement (MRGIC) restoration vs Conventional GIC Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years · 1.5 years mean follow-up (Kilpatrick 1995) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 29.9 | 1 study · 37 participants | Ungraded |
Resin-modified GIC vs Compomer and composite resin Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 4 years, Class I and II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) compomer 4.2%; RMGIC 7.3%; composite resin 6.9% | 1 study · 48 participants | Ungraded |
Preformed metal crown (PMC) vs Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement + composite resin (modified open-sandwich restoration) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy) · 2 years, RMGIC + composite resin (modified open-sandwich) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 3.8 | 1 study · 87 participants | Ungraded |