evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

7 questions · 7 findings · 2 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 2 · 28.6%GRADE not reported 3 · 42.9%Very low 1 · 14.3%Low 1 · 14.3%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs Conventional treatment using composite (with local anaesthetic)

Pain (primary dentition) · Children with carious primary teeth

ART using H-GIC showed no clear difference in pain (primary dentition) compared with conventional treatment using composite (with local anaesthetic); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) vs Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) with glass ionomer cement (GIC) or glass ionomer material

Dental pain or sensitivity · Children and adults (with or without carious lesions)

It is very uncertain whether silver diamine fluoride (SDF) changes dental pain or sensitivity compared with atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) with glass ionomer cement… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs Amalgam restoration

Pain (permanent, immature teeth) · Children and adolescents with dental caries (primary teeth and permanent immature teeth)

ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) led to lower pain (permanent, immature teeth) compared with conventional treatment using amalgam; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs Conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments)

Pain (during procedure, primary dentition) · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children)

ART using high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (H-GIC), hand… showed no clear difference in pain (during procedure, primary dentition) compared with conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review