Single-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs Multi-surface ART with high-viscosity GIC: Restoration survival
- Population
- Children with decayed primary molar teeth
- Intervention
- Single-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer
- Comparison
- Multi-surface ART with high-viscosity GIC
- Outcome
- Restoration survival
Single-surface ART/HVGIC restorations had high reported survival (86% at 3 years), significantly higher than multi-surface restorations (ungraded).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Single-surface ART with high-viscosity GIC vs Multi-surface ART with high-viscosity GIC Restoration survival · Children with caries in primary molars/teeth · 3 years, Single-surface Single-surface ART/HVGIC restorations had high reported survival (86% at 3 years), significantly higher than multi-surface restorations (ungraded). Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. (2022) All outcomes | Survival rate (%) 86 | 9 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. 2022 All outcomes | August 2020 | 35 | Low / Low |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Single-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs No comparator · Permanent posterior teeth with single-surface cavities · 1 review
- Single-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs No comparator · Primary posterior teeth with single-surface cavities · 1 review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.