Question · asked by 1 review

ART using composite resin vs Conventional treatment using composite resin: Restoration failure (primary dentition)

It is very uncertain whether ART using composite resin changes restoration failure (primary dentition) compared with conventional treatment using composite resin (very low certainty).

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
ART using composite resin vs Conventional treatment using composite resin
Restoration failure (primary dentition) · Children with dental caries in primary teeth (mean age 7 years) · 24 months, Multiple surface lesions
It is very uncertain whether ART using composite resin changes restoration failure (primary dentition) compared with conventional treatment using composite resin (very low certainty).
Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane All outcomes
OR 1.11 [0.54, 2.29]1 study · 57 participantsVery low

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries
2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
2017-02list not extracted yetNot assessed

Studies behind the findings

None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.

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.