Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

80 questions · 91 findings · 10 reviews

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 60 · 65.9%Very low 28 · 30.8%Low 1 · 1.1%Moderate 2 · 2.2%High 0 · 0%

Atraumatic restorative treatment with GIC vs Conventional restoration

Restoration failure · Children (3-13 years) with dentine caries in primary teeth, no pulpal involvement

ART with GIC was reported to increase the odds of restoration failure versus conventional restoration (OR 1.60; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment with GIC vs Conventional treatment

Pain during the procedure (primary analysis) · Children (3-13 years) with dentine caries in primary teeth, no pulpal involvement

The reported estimate for procedural pain with ART versus conventional treatment was inconclusive (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Composite resin with etch-and-rinse (total-etch) adhesion vs Composite resin with self-etch adhesion (same universal adhesive)

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with moderately deep dentine caries in primary molars, no pulp therapy

Etch-and-rinse adhesion failed more than self-etch (19.5% vs 7.0% annual failure) in one RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Selective caries removal (SCR) + composite resin vs Complete caries removal (CCR) + composite resin

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with deep dentine caries in primary molars restored with composite resin (indirect pulp treatment; pulpotomy only if pulp exposed…

Complete caries removal with composite resin had an annual failure rate of 6.8% in primary molars (single high-risk-of-bias RCT; low quality of evidence; not GRADE-rated).

2 findings from 1 review

Hall technique vs Compomer restoration or non-restorative caries treatment

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children (aged 3-8 years) with 2-surface occluso-proximal dentine caries in primary molars, no pulp therapy

Preformed metal (Hall) crowns had a low reported annual failure rate (3.1%) versus compomer (14.7%) in one RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

High-viscosity GIC atraumatic restorative treatment vs No control

Restoration survival · Children with decayed primary molar teeth

Multi-surface ART restorations had a reported survival rate of 73% at 1 year.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

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

High-viscosity GIC atraumatic restorative treatment vs Conventional restoration

Restoration survival · Children with occlusoproximal caries in primary teeth

Multiple reviews reported similar restoration survival for ART versus conventional restorations in occlusoproximal cavities (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

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

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

Restoration survival · Children with decayed primary molar teeth

Single-surface ART/HVGIC restorations had high reported survival (86% at 3 years), significantly higher than multi-surface restorations (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Restoration survival · Children with decayed primary molar teeth

Multi-surface ART/HVGIC restorations had lower reported survival (49% at 3 years) than single-surface restorations (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Atraumatic restorative treatment vs Conventional treatment with local anaesthesia

Discomfort associated with the procedure · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children)

The reported estimate for discomfort with ART versus conventional treatment was inconclusive (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review