Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

7 questions · 7 findings · 1 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 5 · 71.4%GRADE not reported 1 · 14.3%Very low 1 · 14.3%Low 0 · 0%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