Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

6 questions · 7 findings · 3 reviews · Dental caries

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 1 · 14.3%GRADE not reported 5 · 71.4%Very low 0 · 0%Low 1 · 14.3%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Multiple-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs Single-surface ART with high-viscosity GIC

Restoration failure · Children (2-9 years) with caries in posterior primary teeth

Multi-surface ART restorations had a high reported mean annual failure rate (17%; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. 2022 All outcomes
First 3 years · Multi-surface
Mean annual failure rate (%) 17
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported

Single-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs Multi-surface ART with high-viscosity GIC

Restoration failure · Children (2-9 years) with caries in posterior primary teeth

Single-surface ART restorations had a low reported mean annual failure rate (about 5%; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. 2022 All outcomes
First 3 years · Single-surface
Mean annual failure rate (%) 4.7% (van 't Hof 2006) to 5% (de Amorim 2018)
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported

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

Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. 2022 All outcomes
24 months
RR 1.07 [0.91, 1.27]
3 studies
GRADE not reported
Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. 2022 All outcomes
12 months
RR 0.93 [0.83, 1.06]
3 studies
GRADE not reported

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

Restoration failure (primary dentition) · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children)

ART using high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (H-GIC), hand… may leads to higher restoration failure (primary dentition) compared with conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 to 24 months
OR 1.60 [1.13, 2.27]
5 studies · 643 participants
Low

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

Restoration failure (permanent dentition) · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies reported on restoration failure in permanent dentition for this comparison.
0 studies
No studies found

Composite resin vs High-viscosity GIC and bulk-fill composite resins

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; tabulated failure rates ranged from 0% to 2.9%.

1 finding from 1 review

Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a… 2022 All outcomes
1 year · University · Class II
Annual failure rate (%) HVGIC 2.9%; composite resin 0%; bulk-fill CR1 0%; bulk-fill CR2 0%
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported