Question · asked by 1 review
Atraumatic restorative treatment with GIC vs Conventional restoration: Restoration failure
- Population
- Children (3-13 years) with dentine caries in primary teeth, no pulpal involvement
- Intervention
- Atraumatic restorative treatment with GIC
- Comparison
- Conventional restoration
- Outcome
- Restoration failure
ART with GIC was reported to increase the odds of restoration failure versus conventional restoration (OR 1.60; ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Atraumatic restorative treatment with GIC vs Conventional restoration (amalgam, conventional GIC, composite resin) Restoration failure · Children (3-13 years) with dentine caries in primary teeth, no pulpal involvement · 12-24 months ART with GIC was reported to increase the odds of restoration failure versus conventional restoration (OR 1.60; ungraded). Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. (2022) All outcomes | OR 1.60 [1.13, 2.27] | 6 studies · 1107 participants | 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 |
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.