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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin) restoration vs Amalgam, RMGIC, HVGIC, composite resin, bulk-fill composite resin, another compomer, or alternative caries management Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years · 12-30 months Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 0-14.7% | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Flowable bulk-fill composite resin vs Compomer 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 0%; bulk-fill composite resin 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 (follow-up 6 to 73.6 months) Outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2022) | Proportion 0.86 [0.76, 0.92] | 11 studies | Very low |
Conventional glass-ionomer cement (GIC) restoration vs Amalgam or metal-reinforced GIC 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 (Welbury 5 years; Kilpatrick 1.5 years mean) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 7.6-16.6% | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Class-I (single-surface) cavity restoration vs Class-II (proximal/multi-surface) cavity restoration Treatment failure (annual failure rate) by cavity class · Children with carious primary teeth restored in Class-I versus Class-II cavities, no pulp therapy · 12-48 months, Cavity class (Class-I vs Class-II) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) Class II 5-28.9%; Class I 1.2-14.7% (ART) | NR | Ungraded |
Single-visit root canal treatment vs Multiple-visit root canal treatment (two or more visits) Pain at 12 months or more (long-term postobturation pain) · People aged 10 years or above requiring root canal treatment; permanent teeth with completely formed apex and without… · 12 to 18 months Single versus multiple visits for endodontic treatment of permanent teeth (2022) · Cochrane | Pain at 12 months or more reported by 2 studies (de Castro Rizzi-Maia 2016 at 12 months; Wong 2015 at 18 months). de Castro Rizzi-Maia 2016: no participant reported pain. Wong 2015: 1/117 single-visit vs 1/103… | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Pulpotomy with Biodentine vs Pulpotomy with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) 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 MTA 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 MTA (indirect comparison; numeric estimate in Supplementary Table S5, not available). | NR | Ungraded |
Preformed metal crown placed by the Hall technique (PMC/HT) vs Compomer restoration or non-restorative caries treatment Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children (aged 3-8 years) with 2-surface occluso-proximal dentine caries in primary molars, no pulp therapy · 2.5 years / 30 months (Santamaria 2017) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) PMC Hall technique 3.1%; compomer 14.7% | 1 study · 169 participants | Ungraded |
Conventional compomer vs Colored compomer 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 (%) Compoglass F 4.3%; Twinky Star 7.0% | 1 study · 98 participants | Ungraded |
Composite resin restoration (hybrid or bulk-fill) vs Compomer, glass-ionomer/RMGIC, amalgam, 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 (%) hybrid 0-19.5%; bulk-fill 0-16.9% | 11 studies | Ungraded |
New restorative materials with bio-active molecules (bio-active materials, BM) vs Any restorative material or technique Not applicable (no eligible studies) · Children with carious primary teeth (no pulp therapy) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | The search retrieved no randomized controlled trials on the clinical effectiveness of new bio-active restorative materials for carious primary teeth. | 0 studies | No studies |
Pulpotomy (partial or full) vs None (single-arm pooled success proportion) Clinical and radiographic success rate (>=6 months) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis and open (immature) root apex due to carious pulp exposure · >=6 months, Open (immature) root apex Outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2022) | Proportion 0.958 [0.81, 0.99] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Single-visit root canal treatment vs Multiple-visit root canal treatment (two or more visits) Sinus tract or fistula formation · People aged 10 years or above requiring root canal treatment; permanent teeth with completely formed apex and without… · After at least 1 month Single versus multiple visits for endodontic treatment of permanent teeth (2022) · Cochrane | RR 1.00 [0.24, 4.28] | 5 studies · 650 participants | Very low |
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, Fibre post (FP) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 2.2 | 1 study · 54 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 and closed (mature) root apex due to carious pulp exposure · >=6 months, Closed (mature) root apex Outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2022) | Proportion 0.83 [0.69, 0.91] | 8 studies | Ungraded |
Composite resin with beveled cavity margin vs Composite resin without beveled cavity margin Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1.5 years, Class I 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 |
Single-visit root canal treatment vs Multiple-visit root canal treatment (two or more visits) Postoperative pain intensity in the immediate postobturation period (up to 72 hours), continuous (VAS) · 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 | MD 0.26 [-4.76, 5.29] | 12 studies · 1258 participants | Low |
Hall-technique preformed metal crown vs Non-restorative caries treatment and compomer Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 2.5 years, Class II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) PMC Hall technique 3.1%; compomer 14.7% | 1 study · 169 participants | Ungraded |
Zirconia crown vs Composite strip crown Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1 year, Primary incisors 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 |
Composite resin with etch-and-rinse adhesive vs Composite resin with self-etch adhesive 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 (%) etch-and-rinse 19.5%; self-etch 7.0% | 1 study · 44 participants | Ungraded |
Pulpotomy with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) 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: MTA vs calcium hydroxide Outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2022) | MTA yielded a statistically significantly higher success rate than calcium hydroxide (indirect comparison; Supplementary Table S5, not available). | NR | Ungraded |
Composite resin vs High-viscosity GIC and bulk-fill composite resins 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 (%) HVGIC 2.9%; composite resin 0%; bulk-fill CR1 0%; bulk-fill CR2 0% | 1 study · 30 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, Selective caries removal (SCR) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 17.1 | 1 study · 48 participants | Ungraded |
Single-visit root canal treatment vs Multiple-visit root canal treatment (two or more visits) Pain at 1 month · People aged 10 years or above requiring root canal treatment; permanent teeth with completely formed apex and without… · 1 month Single versus multiple visits for endodontic treatment of permanent teeth (2022) · Cochrane | One study (Dhyani 2022) reported pain at 1 month: 60 teeth (all vital at enrolment, mechanical NiTi), 0 events (no participant reported pain at 1 month); no meta-analysis | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |
Glass carbomer vs Resin-modified GIC and composite resin 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 (%) RMGIC 1.9-7.5%; glass carbomer 5.8-46.2%; composite resin 2.1% | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Glass carbomer restoration (placed after drilling) vs Composite resin or RMGIC Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years · 12 months (El-Housseiny 2019) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) up to 46.2% | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Conventional GIC vs Metal-reinforced GIC Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1.5 years, Class II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) GIC 16.6%; MRGIC 29.9% | 1 study · 37 participants | Ungraded |
GIC with cavity conditioner vs GIC without cavity conditioner 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 (%) with conditioner 26%; without conditioner 33% | 1 study · 96 participants | Ungraded |
Single-visit root canal treatment vs Multiple-visit root canal treatment (two or more visits) Postobturation pain at 1 week · People aged 10 years or above requiring root canal treatment; permanent teeth with completely formed apex and without… · 1 week postobturation Single versus multiple visits for endodontic treatment of permanent teeth (2022) · Cochrane | RR 1.05 [0.67, 1.67] | 9 studies · 1139 participants | Very low |
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, Reverse metal post (RMP) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 0 | 1 study · 54 participants | Ungraded |
Pulpotomy (partial or full) vs None (single-arm pooled success proportion) Clinical and radiographic success rate (>=6 months) · Human permanent teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis due to carious pulp exposure · >=6 months, Symptomatic irreversible pulpitis Outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2022) | Proportion 0.84 [0.72, 0.92] | 9 studies | Ungraded |
HVGIC Vitro Molar vs HVGIC Ketac Molar Easymix Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 4 years, ART; Class I Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) Vitro Molar 3.5%; Ketac Molar Easymix 5.8% | 1 study · 25 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam (A) vs Preformed metal crown (PMC) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy) · 1 year, Preformed metal crown (PMC) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 2.4 | 1 study · 83 participants | Ungraded |
HVGIC bilayer insertion and surface coating protocols vs Alternative HVGIC insertion and surface coating protocols Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 3 years, ART; Class II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 32.4%, 13.7%, 18.7%, 13.4% by insertion/coating arm | 1 study · 208 participants | Ungraded |
Single-visit root canal treatment vs Multiple-visit root canal treatment (two or more visits) Radiological failure (periapical radiolucency) after at least 1 year · People aged 10 years or above requiring root canal treatment; permanent teeth with completely formed apex and without… · At least 1 year (range 1 to 5 years) Single versus multiple visits for endodontic treatment of permanent teeth (2022) · Cochrane | RR 0.93 [0.81, 1.07] | 13 studies · 1505 participants | Moderate |
Amalgam (A) vs Preformed metal crown (PMC) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy) · 1 year, Amalgam (A) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 14.3 | 1 study · 83 participants | Ungraded |
Super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA) vs Intermediate restorative material (IRM) Success rate at 1 year · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible;… · 1 year Materials for retrograde filling in root canal therapy (2021) · Cochrane | RR 0.90 [0.80, 1.01] | 1 study | Very low |
Dentine-bonded resin composite vs Glass ionomer cement Success rate at 1 year (root as unit, per-protocol analysis) · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible;… · 1 year, Root as unit of analysis (radiological), per-protocol (PP) Materials for retrograde filling in root canal therapy (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.59 [1.20, 2.09] | 1 study | Very low |
Glass ionomer cement vs Amalgam Success rate at 1 year · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible;… · 1 year Materials for retrograde filling in root canal therapy (2021) · Cochrane | RR 0.98 [0.86, 1.12] | 1 study | Very low |
Glass ionomer cement vs Amalgam Adverse events · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible;… Materials for retrograde filling in root canal therapy (2021) · Cochrane | Adverse events: outcome was not assessed by the included studies | 0 studies | No studies |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Intermediate restorative material (IRM) Adverse events · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible;… Materials for retrograde filling in root canal therapy (2021) · Cochrane | Adverse events: outcome was not assessed by the included studies | 0 studies | No studies |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA) Success rate at 4 years · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible;… · 4 years Materials for retrograde filling in root canal therapy (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.02 [0.93, 1.12] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Glass ionomer cement vs Amalgam Success rate at 5 years · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible;… · 5 years Materials for retrograde filling in root canal therapy (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.00 [0.84, 1.20] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Intermediate restorative material (IRM) Success rate at 1 year · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible;… · 1 year Materials for retrograde filling in root canal therapy (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.09 [0.97, 1.22] | 2 studies | Very low |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA) Adverse events · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible;… Materials for retrograde filling in root canal therapy (2021) · Cochrane | Adverse events: outcome was not assessed by the included studies | 0 studies | No studies |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Root repair material (RRM) Adverse events · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible;… Materials for retrograde filling in root canal therapy (2021) · Cochrane | Adverse events: outcome was not assessed by the included studies | 0 studies | No studies |
Dentine-bonded resin composite vs Glass ionomer cement Adverse events · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible;… Materials for retrograde filling in root canal therapy (2021) · Cochrane | Adverse events: outcome was not assessed by the included studies | 0 studies | No studies |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Root repair material (RRM) Success rate at 1 year · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible;… · 1 year Materials for retrograde filling in root canal therapy (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.00 [0.94, 1.07] | 2 studies | Very low |
Dentine-bonded resin composite vs Glass ionomer cement Success rate at 1 year (tooth/participant as unit, per-protocol analysis) · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible;… · 1 year, Tooth as unit of analysis, per-protocol (PP) Materials for retrograde filling in root canal therapy (2021) · Cochrane | RR 2.39 [1.60, 3.59] | 1 study | Very low |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Intermediate restorative material (IRM) Success rate at 2 years · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible;… · 2 years Materials for retrograde filling in root canal therapy (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.05 [0.92, 1.20] | 1 study | Ungraded |