Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

3 questions · 3 findings · 1 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

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

ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs Amalgam restoration

Participant experience (co-operation during procedure) · Children and adolescents with dental caries (primary teeth and permanent immature teeth)

1 finding from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
Ling 2003 assessed participant co-operation during procedures, showing a co-operation rate in the ART group significantly higher than in the control group (no summary statistic reported).
1 study
GRADE not reported

ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) vs Conventional treatment using RM-GIC

Participant experience · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years)

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 participant experience for this comparison.
0 studies
No studies found

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

Discomfort associated with the procedure · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children)

ART using high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (H-GIC), hand… showed no clear difference in participant experience (discomfort during procedure) compared with conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
Multiple lesions, children 6 to 8 years
OR 0.95 [0.51, 1.79]
1 study · 220 participants
GRADE not reported