evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

3 questions · 3 findings · 1 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 3 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Restorative materials placed by atraumatic restorative treatment (ART); mostly high-viscosity/conventional GIC, also RMGIC, glass carbomer, compomer, composite resin vs Different ART materials or application techniques (e.g., bilayer vs single-step, with vs without cavity conditioner/disinfectant), or composite resin

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary teeth treated by atraumatic restorative treatment (hand-instrument caries removal), no pulp therapy

ART restorations (mainly GIC) had a wide annual failure rate (1.2-37.1%) across 10 RCTs, with technique affecting survival; low to unclear quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

High-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) restoration (conventional restorative approach) vs Compomer, composite resin, or another HVGIC

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years

High-viscosity GIC had a wide annual failure rate (2.9-25.6%) and was outperformed by compomer/composite in some trials (3 RCTs); low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Amalgam restoration vs Composite resin, compomer, conventional glass-ionomer cement, or resin-modified GIC (head-to-head RCT comparators)

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years

Amalgam restorations in primary teeth showed a wide annual failure rate (1-28%) across 4 RCTs; the evidence is of low quality (high risk of bias; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review