Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

6 questions · 26 findings · 1 reviews

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 26 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator

Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with single-surface cavities

The pooled survival rate was 93% at 2 years.

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator

Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities

The pooled survival rate was 41% at 2 years.

3 findings from 1 review

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator

Restoration survival · Primary posterior teeth with single-surface cavities

The pooled survival rate was 95% at 1 year.

3 findings from 1 review

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator

Restoration survival · Primary posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities

The pooled survival rate was 62% at 2 years.

3 findings from 1 review

ART sealant using high-viscosity glass ionomer (press-finger technique) vs No comparator

Caries-free sealed pits and fissures · Permanent teeth with sealed pits and fissures

The pooled caries-free rate was 85% at 6 years.

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

ART sealant using high-viscosity glass ionomer (press-finger technique) vs No comparator

Retention of sealant (complete or partial retention) · Permanent teeth

The pooled retention rate was 75% at 1 year.

5 findings from 1 review
Show 2 more findings