What do systematic reviews say?

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

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

• Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Two studies reported on secondary caries, but this outcome was not reported by trial arm (Yu 2004; Roeleveld 2006).
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

ART using composite resin vs Conventional treatment using composite resin

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 secondary caries for this comparison.
  0 studies
  No studies found

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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Topical silver diamine fluoride (SDF) for preventing and managing dental caries in children and adults 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Primary and permanent dentition
  No studies reported this outcome
  0 studies
  No studies found