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.
141 questions in 6 reviews · Esthetic dentistry
current versionsNo studies 16 · 11.3%Ungraded 64 · 45.4%Very low 54 · 38.3%Low 7 · 5%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
In-office laser therapy (all types combined) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Long term (more than 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -2.60 [-4.47, -0.73] | 5 studies · 564 participants | Very low |
Er,Cr:YSGG laser (erbium,chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Short term (0 to 24 hours) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -4.61 [-4.83, -4.39] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Nd:YAG laser (neodymium-doped:yttrium-aluminum-garnet) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Long term (more than 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD 0.18 [-0.84, 1.20] | 1 study | Ungraded |
In-office laser therapy (all types combined) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Short term (0 to 24 hours) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -2.24 [-3.55, -0.93] | 13 studies · 978 participants | Low |
In-office laser therapy (all types combined) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Adverse events · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Air blast stimuli studies (SoF 1) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | No adverse event was noted in the experimental and control groups | 11 studies · 954 participants | Low |
In-office laser therapy (all types combined) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -2.46 [-3.57, -1.35] | 11 studies · 1007 participants | Very low |
Diode laser, visible red (630 nm to 700 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -2.95 [-5.14, -0.75] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Diode laser, near infrared (700 nm to 850 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -3.22 [-4.88, -1.56] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Diode laser, near infrared (850 nm to 980 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Short term (0 to 24 hours) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -1.90 [-2.49, -1.31] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diode laser, near infrared (850 nm to 980 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -1.83 [-2.36, -1.30] | 1 study | Ungraded |
In-office laser therapy (all types combined) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Long term (more than 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -3.52 [-10.37, 3.33] | 2 studies · 184 participants | Very low |
Nd:YAG laser (neodymium-doped:yttrium-aluminum-garnet) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Short term (0 to 24 hours) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -0.25 [-0.91, 0.41] | 1 study | Ungraded |
In-office laser therapy (all types combined) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -1.73 [-3.17, -0.30] | 9 studies · 591 participants | Very low |
Diode laser, near infrared (700 nm to 850 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -0.68 [-3.57, 2.21] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Nd:YAG laser (neodymium-doped:yttrium-aluminum-garnet) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -1.06 [-2.15, 0.03] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Nd:YAG laser (neodymium-doped:yttrium-aluminum-garnet) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Short term (0 to 24 hours) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD 0.22 [-0.55, 0.99] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Er:YAG laser (erbium-doped:yttrium-aluminum-garnet) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Outcome NR · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | We did not find any eligible study to evaluate erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) or carbon dioxide (CO2) laser compared with placebo/no treatment. | 0 studies | No studies |
Diode laser, near infrared (700 nm to 850 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Short term (0 to 24 hours) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -2.62 [-5.61, 0.38] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Er,Cr:YSGG laser (erbium,chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Long term (more than 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -5.19 [-5.50, -4.89] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Diode laser, visible red (630 nm to 700 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Short term (0 to 24 hours) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -1.95 [-3.14, -0.76] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Diode laser, visible red (630 nm to 700 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Long term (more than 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD 0.81 [-0.78, 2.40] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diode laser, near infrared (850 nm to 980 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -2.30 [-2.86, -1.74] | 1 study | Ungraded |
CO2 laser (carbon dioxide) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Outcome NR · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | We did not find any eligible study to evaluate erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) or carbon dioxide (CO2) laser compared with placebo/no treatment. | 0 studies | No studies |
Diode laser, near infrared (700 nm to 850 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Short term (0 to 24 hours) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD 0.27 [-0.60, 1.14] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
In-office laser therapy (all types combined) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Short term (0 to 24 hours) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -0.67 [-1.31, -0.03] | 8 studies · 506 participants | Low |
Er,Cr:YSGG laser (erbium,chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD 0.38 [-0.13, 0.89] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diode laser, near infrared (700 nm to 850 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Long term (more than 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -3.83 [-6.90, -0.77] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
In-office laser therapy (all types combined) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Patient-reported quality of life · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | Outcome not measured in any of the included studies | 0 studies | No studies |
Diode laser, near infrared (850 nm to 980 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Short term (0 to 24 hours) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -2.17 [-2.80, -1.54] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Nd:YAG laser (neodymium-doped:yttrium-aluminum-garnet) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD 0.42 [-0.97, 1.82] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
In-office laser therapy (all types combined) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Adverse events · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Tactile stimuli studies (SoF 2) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | No adverse event was noted in the experimental and control groups | 5 studies · 386 participants | Low |
Diode laser, visible red (630 nm to 700 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Long term (more than 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -4.67 [-5.38, -3.96] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Diode laser, visible red (630 nm to 700 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Short term (0 to 24 hours) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -0.81 [-1.16, -0.45] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Diode laser, visible red (630 nm to 700 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -1.45 [-4.35, 1.44] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Er,Cr:YSGG laser (erbium,chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -4.90 [-5.21, -4.59] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Bleaching gel with added remineralising agent (fluoride, calcium, or CPP-ACP) vs Bleaching alone (no remineralising agent) Whitening (bleaching) efficacy · Demineralised / white-spot-lesion enamel (in vitro specimens) Is Bleaching Effective in Managing Post-orthodontic White-spot Lesions? A Systematic Review. (2020) | Low-quality in vitro data indicated that the presence of fluoride or any other remineralising agent did not impair the whitening effect. | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Tooth bleaching (carbamide or hydrogen peroxide; home and/or in-office) vs No bleaching (untreated control) Colour change / camouflage of white spot lesions (reduction of colour disparity between carious and sound enamel) · Permanent teeth with post-orthodontic white spot lesions (orthodontic patients and in vitro enamel specimens) Is Bleaching Effective in Managing Post-orthodontic White-spot Lesions? A Systematic Review. (2020) | The results showed that bleaching of WSL can diminish colour disparities between carious and non-affected areas, but the certainty of the evidence was very low. | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Laser/light-activated bleaching vs Conventional (non-laser) bleaching with hydrogen or carbamide peroxide Enamel microhardness / caries susceptibility · Permanent teeth enamel (in vitro specimens) Is Bleaching Effective in Managing Post-orthodontic White-spot Lesions? A Systematic Review. (2020) | In two studies having high risk of bias, laser-activated bleaching did not seem to affect enamel microhardness or caries risk when compared to conventional bleaching with hydrogen or carbamide peroxide. | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Tooth bleaching (carbamide or hydrogen peroxide; home or in-office) vs No bleaching (untreated or pH-cycling control) Enamel demineralisation and susceptibility to caries or acid erosion (microhardness, mineral loss) · Permanent teeth / enamel specimens (in vitro) Is Bleaching Effective in Managing Post-orthodontic White-spot Lesions? A Systematic Review. (2020) | Four studies at high risk of bias and one study at moderate risk reached the overall conclusion that neither home- nor in-office bleaching of permanent teeth was associated with an increased susceptibility to… | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Home or in-office bleaching vs No bleaching Caries susceptibility, enamel demineralisation, erosion, or microhardness · Permanent teeth or extracted human teeth with artificial lesions · Varied or not stated Is Bleaching Effective in Managing Post-orthodontic White-spot Lesions? A Systematic Review. (2020) | no estimate extracted | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Tooth bleaching (combined in-office and home bleaching) vs No bleaching (untreated control) Patient satisfaction with aesthetic outcome · Orthodontic patients with post-orthodontic white spot lesions (permanent teeth) · 28 days Is Bleaching Effective in Managing Post-orthodontic White-spot Lesions? A Systematic Review. (2020) | All patients in the bleaching group were satisfied with the outcome; the patients were pleased with the aesthetic outcome of bleaching (Knösel 2007). | 1 study · 10 participants | Ungraded |
Bleaching vs No bleaching or alternative control Colour disparity between carious and non-affected enamel · Permanent teeth with post-orthodontic or artificial white spot lesions · Varied; 28 days in the RCT Is Bleaching Effective in Managing Post-orthodontic White-spot Lesions? A Systematic Review. (2020) | no estimate extracted | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Bleaching plus fluoride, calcium, or CPP-ACP vs Bleaching without a remineralising additive Mineral loss, lesion depth, or enamel microhardness · Extracted human teeth with artificial white spot lesions · Varied or not stated Is Bleaching Effective in Managing Post-orthodontic White-spot Lesions? A Systematic Review. (2020) | no estimate extracted | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Bleaching gel with added remineralising agent (fluoride, calcium, or CPP-ACP) vs Bleaching alone (no remineralising agent) Enamel mineral loss / remineralisation · Demineralised / white-spot-lesion enamel (in vitro specimens) Is Bleaching Effective in Managing Post-orthodontic White-spot Lesions? A Systematic Review. (2020) | Inconclusive: F/Ca/CPP-ACP additives reduced mineral loss on SOUND enamel (refs 8,10,16) but not verified for artificial caries lesions (ref 35) | 4 studies | Ungraded |
6% HP strip vs 10% CP gel in tray Tooth whitening - assessed by the dentist · Adults (>=18 years) undergoing home-based bleaching (including tetracycline- and smoking-stained teeth, any baseline… · 2 weeks Home‐based chemically‐induced whitening (bleaching) of teeth in adults (2018) · Cochrane | MD -0.42 [-0.92, 0.09] | 4 studies · 149 participants | Very low |
HP paint-on gel vs HP paint-on gel Adverse effects · Adults (>=18 years) undergoing home-based bleaching (including tetracycline- and smoking-stained teeth, any baseline… Home‐based chemically‐induced whitening (bleaching) of teeth in adults (2018) · Cochrane | Tooth sensitivity in both groups with no evidence of a difference (Ziebolz 2008) | 1 study | Ungraded |
HP gel in tray vs Placebo Adverse effects · Adults (>=18 years) undergoing home-based bleaching (including tetracycline- and smoking-stained teeth, any baseline… Home‐based chemically‐induced whitening (bleaching) of teeth in adults (2018) · Cochrane | Not reported | NR | No studies |
5.3% HP strip vs 5% HP gel in tray Patient comfort / acceptability · Adults (>=18 years) undergoing home-based bleaching (including tetracycline- and smoking-stained teeth, any baseline… Home‐based chemically‐induced whitening (bleaching) of teeth in adults (2018) · Cochrane | MD 1.27 [0.13, 2.41] | 1 study · 28 participants | Very low |
10% CP gel in tray vs Placebo Tooth whitening - assessed by the dentist · Adults (>=18 years) undergoing home-based bleaching (including tetracycline- and smoking-stained teeth, any baseline… · 2 weeks, dark baseline shade Home‐based chemically‐induced whitening (bleaching) of teeth in adults (2018) · Cochrane | MD 10 [9.44, 10.56] | 1 study | Very low |
5.6% SHMP chewing gum vs Placebo Tooth whitening - assessed by the dentist · Adults (>=18 years) undergoing home-based bleaching (including tetracycline- and smoking-stained teeth, any baseline… · 3 days Home‐based chemically‐induced whitening (bleaching) of teeth in adults (2018) · Cochrane | MD 2.60 [1.45, 3.75] | 1 study · 20 participants | Very low |