Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

18 questions · 18 findings · 1 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 8 · 44.4%GRADE not reported 7 · 38.9%Very low 1 · 5.6%Low 2 · 11.1%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

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

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

Costs (direct and indirect) · 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 costs for this comparison.
0 studies
No studies found

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

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

1 finding from 1 review

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

Pain · 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
Pain: Not measured.
0 studies
No studies found

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

Restoration failure (primary dentition) · 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
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

Adverse events · 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
Adverse events: Not measured.
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

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

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

Pain (during procedure, primary dentition) · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children)

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).

1 finding from 1 review

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)

Costs (direct and indirect) · 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 costs for this comparison.
0 studies
No studies found

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

Adverse events · 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
Adverse events: Not measured.
0 studies
No studies found

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

Secondary caries · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children)

1 finding from 1 review

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)

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

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

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

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).

1 finding from 1 review

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

ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs Amalgam restoration

Restoration failure (primary dentition) · Children and adolescents with dental caries (primary teeth and permanent immature teeth)

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

1 finding from 1 review

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

Restoration failure (permanent, immature teeth) · Children and adolescents with dental caries (primary teeth and permanent immature teeth)

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

1 finding from 1 review

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

Pain (permanent, immature teeth) · Children and adolescents with dental caries (primary teeth and permanent immature teeth)

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

1 finding from 1 review

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

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