Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

3 questions · 3 findings · 1 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 3 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs Amalgam restoration

Restoration failure (primary dentition) · Children with carious primary teeth

ART using H-GIC showed no clear difference in restoration failure (primary teeth) compared with conventional treatment using amalgam; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
Single and multiple lesions
OR 2.15 [0.73, 6.35]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

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

Restoration failure (primary dentition) · Children with carious primary teeth

ART using H-GIC led to higher restoration failure (primary teeth) compared with conventional treatment using composite (with local anaesthetic); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
Multiple lesions
OR 8.00 [1.24, 51.48]
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported

ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs Amalgam restoration

Restoration failure (primary dentition) · Children and adolescents with dental caries (primary teeth and permanent immature teeth)

ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) showed no clear difference in restoration failure (primary teeth) compared with conventional treatment using amalgam; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
Lesion type not reported
OR 0.78 [0.30, 2.02]
1 study · 80 participants
GRADE not reported