Same question across reviews · CL0173
intervention :: Glass ionomer / ART -> Diagnostic accuracy
ProposalThis cluster groups questions by review type, intervention category and outcome domain. It is a proposal pending human validation, so questions in it may differ in population, comparator or timing.
Reviews
5
Questions
15
current versions
GRADE rated
5
Review overlap (CCA)
0.000
over all included studies of these reviews, not this question only
| Question | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Cavity liner (calcium hydroxide, glass-ionomer cement, resin-modified calcium silicate/TheraCal LC, hydraulic calcium silicate/MTA or Biodentine, flowable composite, or other liner material) vs No cavity liner or a different liner material Postoperative hypersensitivity · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible… · 7 days to 3 months Efficacy of different cavity liners compared to no cavity lining in managing deep caries in vital permanent… (2025) | No significant difference; minimal pain reported | 9 studies · 1000 participants | Very low |
Ion-releasing restorations (IRR): RMGIC, HVGIC, GIC, compomer/PMRC, giomer vs Composite resin (CR), including bulk-fill composite Absence of sensibility (post-operative sensitivity) · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities) · 1 to 2 years Clinical effectiveness of ion-releasing restorations compared to composite restorations in pediatric dental… (2025) | RR 1.02 [0.95, 1.11] | 3 studies · 197 participants | High |
Atraumatic restorative treatment with GIC vs Conventional treatment Pain during procedure · Children (3-13 years) with dentine caries in primary teeth, no pulpal involvement · During procedure Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. (2022) | MD -0.65 [-1.38, 0.07] | 6 studies · 1107 participants | Ungraded |
Atraumatic restorative treatment vs Conventional treatment with local anaesthesia Discomfort during procedure · Children (6-8 years) with caries in primary teeth · During procedure, Children 6-8 years; ART vs conventional treatment with local anaesthetic Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. (2022) | OR 0.95 [0.51, 1.79] | 6 studies · 1107 participants | Ungraded |
Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth) Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (dichotomous yes/no) · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth · 1 week Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin‐based composite restorations (2019) · Cochrane | RR 0.56 [0.26, 1.17] | 3 studies | Low |
Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth) Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), cold response measurement (time in seconds) · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth · 1 week Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin‐based composite restorations (2019) · Cochrane | MD 6 [1.36, 10.64] | 1 study | Low |
Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth) Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (dichotomous yes/no) · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth · 24 hours Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin‐based composite restorations (2019) · Cochrane | RR 0.26 [0.11, 0.64] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth) Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), cold response measurement (VAS score) · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth · 1 week Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin‐based composite restorations (2019) · Cochrane | MD -0.20 [-0.67, 0.26] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth) Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score) · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth · 1 week Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin‐based composite restorations (2019) · Cochrane | MD -0.33 [-0.43, -0.23] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth) Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score) · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth · 1 month Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin‐based composite restorations (2019) · Cochrane | MD -0.20 [-0.31, -0.09] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth) Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (dichotomous yes/no) · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth · 1 month Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin‐based composite restorations (2019) · Cochrane | RR 0.44 [0.15, 1.34] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth) Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), cold response measurement (VAS score) · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth · 1 month Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin‐based composite restorations (2019) · Cochrane | MD -0.33 [-0.76, 0.11] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
ART using high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (H-GIC), hand instruments vs Conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments) Participant experience (discomfort during procedure) · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children) · Multiple lesions, children 6 to 8 years Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | OR 0.95 [0.51, 1.79] | 1 study · 220 participants | Ungraded |
ART using high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (H-GIC), hand instruments vs Conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments) Pain (during procedure, primary dentition) · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children) · During procedure Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | MD -0.65 [-1.38, 0.07] | 1 study · 40 participants | Low |
ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs Conventional treatment using amalgam Participant experience (co-operation during procedure) · Children and adolescents with dental caries (primary teeth and permanent immature teeth) Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | Ling 2003 assessed participant co-operation during procedures, showing a co-operation rate in the ART group significantly higher than in the control group (no summary statistic reported). | 1 study | Ungraded |