Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

13 questions · 22 findings · 5 reviews

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 22 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Restorative materials placed by atraumatic restorative treatment (ART); mostly high-viscosity/conventional GIC, also RMGIC, glass carbomer, compomer, composite resin vs Different ART materials or application techniques (e.g., bilayer vs single-step, with vs without cavity conditioner/disinfectant), or composite resin

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary teeth treated by atraumatic restorative treatment (hand-instrument caries removal), no pulp therapy

ART restorations (mainly GIC) had a wide annual failure rate (1.2-37.1%) across 10 RCTs, with technique affecting survival; low to unclear quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment vs placebo

Treatment success (caries lesion arrest or restoration survival) · Children (aged 3-11 y) with cavitated caries lesions in primary teeth

At 6 months, ART had significantly higher treatment success than placebo (OR 16.18).

1 finding from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment vs Conventional treatment with local anaesthesia

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

The reported estimate for discomfort with ART versus conventional treatment was inconclusive (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment with GIC vs Conventional treatment

Pain during the procedure (primary analysis) · Children (3-13 years) with dentine caries in primary teeth, no pulpal involvement

The reported estimate for procedural pain with ART versus conventional treatment was inconclusive (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment vs placebo

Oral health-related quality of life · Children with dental caries

ART and placebo did not differ for oral health-related quality of life, based on an indirect network estimate with no direct trials (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.38; ungraded).

3 findings from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment vs Silver diamine fluoride

Oral health-related quality of life · Children with dental caries

The network estimate found no statistically significant difference in oral health-related quality of life between atraumatic restorative treatment and silver diamine fluoride.

2 findings from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealant (one-time) vs no treatment

New coronal caries in permanent first molars (caries prevention) · Children with dental caries in permanent (first) molars

ART within a brushing programme significantly reduced caries vs control (p<0.01; ungraded).

2 findings from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment with GIC vs Conventional restoration

Restoration failure · Children (3-13 years) with dentine caries in primary teeth, no pulpal involvement

ART with GIC was reported to increase the odds of restoration failure versus conventional restoration (OR 1.60; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

High-viscosity GIC atraumatic restorative treatment vs No control

Restoration survival · Children with decayed primary molar teeth

Multi-surface ART restorations had a reported survival rate of 73% at 1 year.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Atraumatic restorative treatment plus fluoride varnish vs Silver diamine fluoride plus fluoride varnish

Oral health-related quality of life · Children with dental caries

The direct estimate found no statistically significant difference in oral health-related quality of life between atraumatic restorative treatment plus fluoride varnish and silver diamine fluoride plus fluoride varnish.

2 findings from 1 review

High-viscosity GIC atraumatic restorative treatment vs Conventional restoration

Restoration survival · Children with occlusoproximal caries in primary teeth

Multiple reviews reported similar restoration survival for ART versus conventional restorations in occlusoproximal cavities (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment with high-viscosity GIC (class I) vs Amalgam restoration

Success or failure of restoration (as defined by the USPHS criteria) · Children with carious primary teeth

ART with high-viscosity GIC and amalgam had similar class I restoration success at 24 months (ungraded).

2 findings from 1 review