What do systematic reviews say?

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

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).

• 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

Light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

Over 1 year in permanent teeth, secondary caries did not differ significantly between RMGIC and GIC (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.45-7.28; low certainty).

• Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network… 2023 All outcomes

  1 year of follow-up · Restorative dentistry clinical settings; primary studies conducted across multiple countries
  RR 1.82 [0.45, 7.28]
  2 studies · 126 participants
  Low
• Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network… 2023 All outcomes

  2 or more years of follow-up · Restorative dentistry clinical settings; primary studies conducted across multiple countries
  RR 1.33 [0.70, 2.54]
  5 studies · 141 participants
  Low

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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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

• 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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Adverse events: Not measured.
  0 studies
  No studies found

A permanent restorative material or technique (e.g. amalgam; glass ionomer (type I-IV); composite resin (macrofilled, microfilled, hybrid, nanofilled); resin-modified glass ionomer (compomer, giomer); cement/cermet; stainless steel or nickel-chrome crown; pre-fabricated resin/porcelain veneer facing; microabrasion) vs A different permanent restorative material or technique

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for the restorative care of amelogenesis imperfecta in children and adolescents 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Main results: No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Effects of interventions: No studies met the inclusion criteria.
  0 studies
  No studies found

A permanent restorative material or technique (e.g. amalgam; glass ionomer (type I-IV); composite resin (macrofilled, microfilled, hybrid, nanofilled); resin-modified glass ionomer (compomer, giomer); cement/cermet; stainless steel or nickel-chrome crown; pre-fabricated resin/porcelain veneer facing; microabrasion) vs A different permanent restorative material or technique

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for the restorative care of amelogenesis imperfecta in children and adolescents 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Main results: No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Effects of interventions: No studies met the inclusion criteria.
  0 studies
  No studies found