Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

3 questions · 3 findings · 1 reviews · Dental caries

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 2 · 66.7%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 33.3%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

ART using composite resin vs Conventional treatment using composite resin

Restoration failure (permanent dentition) · Children with carious primary teeth

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies reported on restoration failure in the permanent dentition for this comparison.
0 studies
No studies found

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs Conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments)

Restoration failure (permanent dentition) · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies reported on restoration failure in permanent dentition for this comparison.
0 studies
No studies found

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)

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).

1 finding from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 months · Root caries
OR 2.71 [0.94, 7.81]
1 study · 64 participants
Very low