Question · asked by 1 review
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator: Restoration survival
- Population
- Permanent posterior teeth with single-surface cavities
- Intervention
- High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations
- Comparison
- No comparator
- Outcome
- Restoration survival
The pooled survival rate was 93% at 2 years.
What each review found
Include earlier review versionsNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 6 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with single-surface cavities · 2 years, School clinic or field, single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 2 years The pooled survival rate was 93% at 2 years. Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) All outcomes | Survival percentage 93 [89, 95] | 13 studies | GRADE not reported |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with single-surface cavities · 4 years, School clinic or field, single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 4 years The pooled survival rate was 86% at 4 years. Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) All outcomes | Survival percentage 86 [78, 93] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with single-surface cavities · 6 years, School clinic or field, single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 6 years The pooled survival rate was 72% at 6 years. Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) All outcomes | Survival percentage 72 [67, 76] | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with single-surface cavities · 5 years, School clinic or field, single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 5 years The pooled survival rate was 80% at 5 years. Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) All outcomes | Survival percentage 80 [76, 83] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with single-surface cavities · 3 years, School clinic or field, single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 3 years The pooled survival rate was 85% at 3 years. Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) All outcomes | Survival percentage 85 [77, 91] | 6 studies | GRADE not reported |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with single-surface cavities · 1 year, School clinic or field, single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 1 year The pooled survival rate was 96% at 1 year. Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) All outcomes | Survival percentage 96 [94, 97] | 15 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2012 All outcomes | All publications listed until 1 February 2010 | 29 | Critically Low / Critically Low |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator · Primary posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities · 1 review
- High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator · Primary posterior teeth with single-surface cavities · 1 review
- High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator · Permanent posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities · 1 review
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.
- Six-year follow up of atraumatic restorative treatment restorations placed in Chinese school children. · 2007 · included by 1 of these review
- Survival of ART and amalgam restorations in permanent teeth of children after 6.3 years. · 2006 · included by 1 of these review
- The effects of two cavity preparation methods on the longevity of glass ionomer cement restorations: an evaluation after 12 months. · 2002 · included by 1 of these review
- Comparison of two tooth-saving preparation techniques for one-surface cavities. · 2002 · included by 1 of these review
- Clinical trial of a new glass ionomer for an atraumatic restorative treatment technique in class I restorations placed in Latvian school… · 2002 · included by 1 of these review
- Survival of Fuji IX ART fillings in permanent teeth of primary school children in Tanzania. · 2001 · included by 1 of these review
- A 2-year clinical study of two glass ionomer cements used in the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique. · 1999 · included by 1 of these review
- The impact of the ART approach on the treatment profile in a mobile dental system (MDS) in South Africa. · 1999 · included by 1 of these review
- PAHO 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.