Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4 questions · 5 findings · 4 reviews

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 5 · 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 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).

1 finding 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