evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

72 questions · 169 findings · 8 reviews · All outcomes

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 169 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Tooth-coloured direct restorative materials (composite, compomer, giomer, RMGIC, HVGIC, open-sandwich) vs No comparator

Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations

For the Rubber dam isolation: Yes subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.931 (95% CI 0.834-0.973; ungraded).

28 findings from 1 review
Show 25 more findings

Tooth-coloured direct restorative materials (composite, compomer, giomer, RMGIC, HVGIC, open-sandwich) vs No comparator

Marginal integrity success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations

After trim-and-fill adjustment the marginal integrity success rate was 0.881 (95% CI 0.832-0.916; ungraded), a negligible change.

2 findings from 1 review

Tooth-coloured direct restorative materials (composite, compomer, giomer, RMGIC, HVGIC, open-sandwich) vs No comparator

Anatomic form success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations

The pooled 24-month anatomic form success rate was 0.901 (95% CI 0.845-0.938; ungraded).

2 findings from 1 review

Tooth-coloured direct restorative materials (composite, compomer, giomer, RMGIC, HVGIC, open-sandwich) vs No comparator

Absence of recurrent caries success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations

After trim-and-fill adjustment the absence-of-recurrent-caries success rate was 0.878 (95% CI 0.828-0.915; ungraded), a negligible change.

2 findings from 1 review

Replacement of the defective restoration vs Repair of the defective restoration

Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin · Dentists managing a defective direct resin composite restoration (posterior occlusal Class I; standardized vignette of a 30-year-old,…

For a defective composite restoration with open margin, surveyed dentists most often preferred replacement over repair (pooled RR 3.93; p < 0.001); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Replacement of the defective restoration vs Repair of the defective restoration

Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin · Dentists managing a defective direct amalgam restoration (posterior occlusal Class I; standardized vignette of a 30-year-old,…

For a defective amalgam restoration with open margin, surveyed dentists most often preferred replacement over repair (pooled RR 5.14; p < 0.001); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review