ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) vs Conventional treatment using RM-GIC: Restoration failure (permanent, mature dentition; root surfaces)
It is very uncertain whether ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) changes restoration failure (permanent, mature dentition; root surfaces) compared with conventional treatment using RM-GIC (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) vs Conventional treatment using RM-GIC Restoration failure (permanent, mature dentition; root surfaces) · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years) · 6 months, Root caries It is very uncertain whether ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) changes restoration failure (permanent, mature dentition; root surfaces) compared with conventional treatment using RM-GIC (very low certainty). Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane All outcomes | OR 2.71 [0.94, 7.81] | 1 study · 64 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2017-02 | list not extracted yet | Not 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.