What do systematic reviews say?

ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs Amalgam restoration

• 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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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

ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs Amalgam restoration

ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) showed no clear difference in restoration failure (primary teeth) compared with conventional treatment using amalgam; GRADE not reported.

• Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Lesion type not reported
  OR 0.78 [0.30, 2.02]
  1 study · 80 participants
  GRADE not reported

ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs Amalgam restoration

ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) led to higher restoration failure (permanent, immature teeth) compared with conventional treatment using amalgam; GRADE not reported.

• Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Lesion type not reported
  OR 1.71 [1.32, 2.22]
  1 study · 1629 participants
  GRADE not reported

ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs Amalgam restoration

ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) led to lower pain (permanent, immature teeth) compared with conventional treatment using amalgam; GRADE not reported.

• Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  OR 0.41 [0.35, 0.47]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

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

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.

• 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

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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported on costs for this comparison.
  0 studies
  No studies found

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

• Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 months
  One study reported data on secondary caries for this comparison (Cruz 2016). The odds of secondary caries at six months were greater with ART than with conventional treatment.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Pain: Not measured.
  0 studies
  No studies found

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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Restoration failure (primary dentition): 0 studies; No studies included.
  0 studies
  No studies found

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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Adverse events: Not measured.
  0 studies
  No studies found

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

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).

• 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

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

ART using high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (H-GIC), hand… showed no clear difference in pain (during procedure, primary dentition) compared with conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments) (low certainty).

• Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  During procedure
  MD -0.65 [-1.38, 0.07]
  1 study · 40 participants
  Low

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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported on costs for this comparison.
  0 studies
  No studies found

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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Adverse events: Not measured.
  0 studies
  No studies found

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

• Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Two studies reported on secondary caries, but this outcome was not reported by trial arm (Yu 2004; Roeleveld 2006).
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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

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

ART using high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (H-GIC), hand… may leads to higher restoration failure (primary dentition) compared with conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments) (low certainty).

• Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 to 24 months
  OR 1.60 [1.13, 2.27]
  5 studies · 643 participants
  Low