Restorative materials placed by atraumatic restorative treatment (ART); mostly high-viscosity/conventional GIC, also RMGIC, glass carbomer, compomer, composite resin vs Different ART materials or application techniques (e.g., bilayer vs single-step, with vs without cavity conditioner/disinfectant), or composite resin: Treatment failure (annual failure rate)
- Population
- Children with carious primary teeth treated by atraumatic restorative treatment (hand-instrument caries removal), no pulp therapy
- Intervention
- Restorative materials placed by atraumatic restorative treatment (ART); mostly high-viscosity/conventional GIC, also RMGIC, glass carbomer, compomer, composite resin
- Comparison
- Different ART materials or application techniques (e.g., bilayer vs single-step, with vs without cavity conditioner/disinfectant), or composite resin
- Outcome
- Treatment failure (annual failure rate)
ART restorations (mainly GIC) had a wide annual failure rate (1.2-37.1%) across 10 RCTs, with technique affecting survival; low to unclear quality of evidence (ungraded).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Restorative materials placed by atraumatic restorative treatment (ART); mostly high-viscosity/conventional GIC, also RMGIC, glass carbomer, compomer, composite resin vs Different ART materials or application techniques (e.g., bilayer vs single-step, with vs without cavity conditioner/disinfectant), or composite resin Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary teeth treated by atraumatic restorative treatment (hand-instrument caries removal), no… · 12-48 months, Mostly school settings and universities (8 studies used cotton-roll isolation), Restorative technique (ART) ART restorations (mainly GIC) had a wide annual failure rate (1.2-37.1%) across 10 RCTs, with technique affecting survival; low to unclear quality of evidence (ungraded). Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) All outcomes | Annual failure rate (%) 1.2-37.1% | 10 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a systematic review. 2022 All outcomes | December 28, 2020 | 53 | Low / Low |
Studies behind the findings
The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.
- Ersin 2006 · included by 1 of these 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.