High-viscosity GIC atraumatic restorative treatment vs Conventional restoration: Restoration survival
- Population
- Children with occlusoproximal caries in primary teeth
- Intervention
- High-viscosity GIC atraumatic restorative treatment
- Comparison
- Conventional restoration
- Outcome
- Restoration survival
Multiple reviews reported similar restoration survival for ART versus conventional restorations in occlusoproximal cavities (ungraded).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Atraumatic restorative treatment with high-viscosity GIC vs Conventional restoration (amalgam / composite resin) Restoration survival · Children with occlusoproximal caries in primary teeth · 2-3 years, Occlusoproximal cavities (Raggio 2013; Tedesco 2017) Multiple reviews reported similar restoration survival for ART versus conventional restorations in occlusoproximal cavities (ungraded). Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. (2022) All outcomes | OR OR 0.298-1.267 (Raggio 2013); Tedesco 2017 ORs 0.298/0.710/1.26 (NS) | Not reported | 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.
- High-viscosity GIC atraumatic restorative treatment vs No control · Children with decayed primary molar teeth · 1 review
- High-viscosity GIC atraumatic restorative treatment vs Amalgam or composite resin restoration · Children with occlusoproximal caries in primary teeth · 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.