Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

5 questions · 9 findings · 2 reviews

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 9 · 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

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

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