Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM21274581
Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis.
de Amorim Rodrigo G, Leal Soraya C, Frencken Jo E · Clinical oral investigations · 2012 · PubMed · doi:10.1007/s00784-011-0513-3
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full text, figures and supplements by two independent LLM extractors, disagreements adjudicated. Rows cite where in the review the value comes from.
Questions
53
current version
GRADE rated
0
No studies
0
Included studies
29
linked below
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 53 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Primary and permanent posterior teeth restored or sealed using ART with high-viscosity glass ionomers | Children/patients with primary and permanent posterior teeth across 18 countries (29 publications reporting on 27 studies) |
| Intervention | Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations and sealants using high-viscosity glass ionomers, placed by a graduated dentist without rotary instruments | Single- and multiple-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations and ART sealants |
| Comparison | Not applicable (single-arm survival); location (dental clinic vs primary school) evaluated as an independent variable | None (single-arm survival); no location (clinic vs school) effect observed (p>0.05) |
| Outcomes | Survival of ART restorations; retention of ART sealants; caries-preventive effect (dentine lesion-free sealed pits and fissures) | Restoration survival (primary and permanent teeth); sealant retention; caries-free sealed pits and fissures |
| Study designs | Not specified (dental clinics and primary schools) | Dental clinics, primary schools and field settings; 18 countries (27 studies, 29 publications) |
| Timing | Annual survival from 1 up to 6 years | 1 to 6 years of follow-up |
Search date: All publications listed until 1 February 2010. Databases: PubMed; Medline; LILACS; BBO
Questions and results
Single-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs None (single-arm survival proportion; no comparator)
Population: Primary posterior teeth with single-surface cavities (children)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration survival 2 years · single-surface primary posterior teeth, 2 years Single-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in primary teeth had high 2-year survival (93%, 95% CI 91-94%); evidence ungraded. Source: Table 2 (weighted mean score); Results (ART restorations); N publications per year from Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.93 [0.91, 0.94] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 3 years · single-surface primary posterior teeth, 3 years Single-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in primary teeth had moderate 3-year survival (66%, 95% CI 13-99%); evidence ungraded. Source: Table 2 (weighted mean score); Results (ART restorations); N publications per year from Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.66 [0.13, 0.99] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 1 year · single-surface primary posterior teeth, 1 year Population: Primary posterior teeth with single-surface cavities The pooled survival rate was 95% at 1 year. Source: Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Survival percentage 95 [91, 98] | 9 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 3 years · single-surface primary posterior teeth, 3 years Population: Primary posterior teeth with single-surface cavities The pooled survival rate was 66% at 3 years. Source: Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Survival percentage 66 [13, 99] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 2 years · single-surface primary posterior teeth, 2 years Population: Primary posterior teeth with single-surface cavities The pooled survival rate was 93% at 2 years. Source: Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Survival percentage 93 [91, 94] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 1 year · single-surface primary posterior teeth, 1 year Single-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in primary teeth had high 1-year survival (95%, 95% CI 91-98%); evidence ungraded. Source: Table 2 (weighted mean score); Results (ART restorations); N publications per year from Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.95 [0.91, 0.98] | 9 studies | Ungraded |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator
Population: Primary posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration survival 1 year · multiple-surface primary posterior teeth, 1 year The pooled survival rate was 71% at 1 year. Source: Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Survival percentage 71 [60, 80] | 8 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 1 year · multiple-surface primary posterior teeth, 1 year Population: Primary posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities (children) Multiple-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in primary teeth had moderate 1-year survival (71%, 95% CI 60-80%); evidence ungraded. Source: Table 3 (weighted mean score); Results (ART restorations); N publications per year from Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.71 [0.60, 0.80] | 8 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 2 years · multiple-surface primary posterior teeth, 2 years Population: Primary posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities (children) Multiple-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in primary teeth had moderate 2-year survival (62%, 95% CI 51-73%); evidence ungraded. Source: Table 3 (weighted mean score); Results (ART restorations); N publications per year from Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.62 [0.51, 0.73] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 2 years · multiple-surface primary posterior teeth, 2 years The pooled survival rate was 62% at 2 years. Source: Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Survival percentage 62 [51, 73] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 3 years · multiple-surface primary posterior teeth, 3 years The pooled survival rate was 31% at 3 years. Source: Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Survival percentage 31 [2, 77] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 3 years · multiple-surface primary posterior teeth, 3 years Population: Primary posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities (children) Multiple-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in primary teeth had low 3-year survival (31%, 95% CI 2-77%); evidence ungraded. Source: Table 3 (weighted mean score); Results (ART restorations); N publications per year from Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.31 [0.02, 0.77] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Single-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs None (single-arm survival proportion; no comparator)
Population: Permanent posterior teeth with single-surface cavities
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration survival 1 year · single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 1 year Single-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in permanent teeth had high 1-year survival (96%, 95% CI 94-97%); evidence ungraded. Source: Table 4 (weighted mean score); Results (ART restorations); N publications per year from Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.96 [0.94, 0.97] | 15 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 3 years · single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 3 years The pooled survival rate was 85% at 3 years. Source: Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Survival percentage 85 [77, 91] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 6 years · single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 6 years The pooled survival rate was 72% at 6 years. Source: Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Survival percentage 72 [67, 76] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 2 years · single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 2 years Single-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in permanent teeth had high 2-year survival (93%, 95% CI 89-95%); evidence ungraded. Source: Table 4 (weighted mean score); Results (ART restorations); N publications per year from Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.93 [0.89, 0.95] | 13 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 5 years · single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 5 years Single-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in permanent teeth had high 5-year survival (80%, 95% CI 76-83%); evidence ungraded. Source: Table 4 (weighted mean score); Results (ART restorations); N publications per year from Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.80 [0.76, 0.83] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 5 years · single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 5 years The pooled survival rate was 80% at 5 years. Source: Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Survival percentage 80 [76, 83] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 4 years · single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 4 years Single-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in permanent teeth had high 4-year survival (86%, 95% CI 78-93%); evidence ungraded. Source: Table 4 (weighted mean score); Results (ART restorations); N publications per year from Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.86 [0.78, 0.93] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 4 years · single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 4 years The pooled survival rate was 86% at 4 years. Source: Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Survival percentage 86 [78, 93] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 2 years · single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 2 years The pooled survival rate was 93% at 2 years. Source: Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Survival percentage 93 [89, 95] | 13 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 6 years · single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 6 years Single-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in permanent teeth had moderate 6-year survival (72%, 95% CI 67-76%); evidence ungraded. Source: Table 4 (weighted mean score); Results (ART restorations); N publications per year from Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.72 [0.67, 0.76] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 3 years · single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 3 years Single-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in permanent teeth had high 3-year survival (85%, 95% CI 77-91%); evidence ungraded. Source: Table 4 (weighted mean score); Results (ART restorations); N publications per year from Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.85 [0.77, 0.91] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 1 year · single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 1 year The pooled survival rate was 96% at 1 year. Source: Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Survival percentage 96 [94, 97] | 15 studies | Ungraded |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator
Population: Permanent posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration survival 2 years · multiple-surface permanent posterior teeth, 2 years The pooled survival rate was 41% at 2 years. Source: Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Survival percentage 41 [18, 67] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 1 year · multiple-surface permanent posterior teeth, 1 year The pooled survival rate was 86% at 1 year. Source: Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Survival percentage 86 [59, 98] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 5 years · multiple-surface permanent posterior teeth, 5 years Multiple-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in permanent teeth had moderate 5-year survival (77%, 95% CI 56-92%); evidence ungraded. Source: Table 5 (weighted mean score); Results (ART restorations); N publications per year from Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.77 [0.56, 0.92] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 1 year · multiple-surface permanent posterior teeth, 1 year Multiple-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in permanent teeth had high 1-year survival (86%, 95% CI 59-98%); evidence ungraded. Source: Table 5 (weighted mean score); Results (ART restorations); N publications per year from Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.86 [0.59, 0.98] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 5 years · multiple-surface permanent posterior teeth, 5 years The pooled survival rate was 77% at 5 years. Source: Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Survival percentage 77 [56, 92] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Restoration survival 2 years · multiple-surface permanent posterior teeth, 2 years Multiple-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in permanent teeth had low 2-year survival (41%, 95% CI 18-67%); evidence ungraded. Source: Table 5 (weighted mean score); Results (ART restorations); N publications per year from Table 8 · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.41 [0.18, 0.67] | 1 study | Ungraded |
ART sealant using high-viscosity glass ionomer (press-finger technique) vs None (single-arm survival proportion; no comparator)
Population: Pits and fissures of permanent (posterior) teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Caries-free sealed pits and fissures 1 year · permanent dentitions with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants, 1 year Pits and fissures sealed with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants remained dentine lesion-free in 100% (95% CI 99-100%) at 1-year; evidence ungraded. Source: Table 7 (weighted mean score); Results (ART sealants) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 1.00 [0.99, 1.00] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Sealant retention 1 year · partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 1 year Population: Permanent teeth The pooled retention rate was 75% at 1 year. Source: Table 6 · same question in other reviews | Survival percentage 75 [51, 91] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Caries-free sealed pits and fissures 2 years · permanent dentitions with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants, 2 years Pits and fissures sealed with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants remained dentine lesion-free in 100% (95% CI 98-100%) at 2-year; evidence ungraded. Source: Table 7 (weighted mean score); Results (ART sealants) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 1.00 [0.98, 1.00] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Sealant retention (partially and fully retained) 6 years · partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 6 years High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants showed 6-year retention of 59% (95% CI 51-67%); evidence ungraded. Source: Table 6 (weighted mean score); Results (ART sealants) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.59 [0.51, 0.67] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Sealant retention 5 years · partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 5 years Population: Permanent teeth The pooled retention rate was 63% at 5 years. Source: Table 6 · same question in other reviews | Survival percentage 63 [56, 70] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Sealant retention (partially and fully retained) 1 year · partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 1 year High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants showed 1-year retention of 75% (95% CI 51-91%); evidence ungraded. Source: Table 6 (weighted mean score); Results (ART sealants) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.75 [0.51, 0.91] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Sealant retention (partially and fully retained) 4 years · partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 4 years High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants showed 4-year retention of 68% (95% CI 61-75%); evidence ungraded. Source: Table 6 (weighted mean score); Results (ART sealants) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.68 [0.61, 0.75] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Sealant retention (partially and fully retained) 5 years · partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 5 years High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants showed 5-year retention of 63% (95% CI 56-70%); evidence ungraded. Source: Table 6 (weighted mean score); Results (ART sealants) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.63 [0.56, 0.70] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Sealant retention 3 years · partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 3 years Population: Permanent teeth The pooled retention rate was 72% at 3 years. Source: Table 6 · same question in other reviews | Survival percentage 72 [72, 86] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Caries-free sealed pits and fissures 4 years · permanent dentitions with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants, 4 years Pits and fissures sealed with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants remained dentine lesion-free in 93% (95% CI 91-96%) at 4-year; evidence ungraded. Source: Table 7 (weighted mean score); Results (ART sealants) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.93 [0.91, 0.96] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Sealant retention 2 years · partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 2 years Population: Permanent teeth The pooled retention rate was 82% at 2 years. Source: Table 6 · same question in other reviews | Survival percentage 82 [77, 86] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Sealant retention (partially and fully retained) 3 years · partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 3 years High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants showed 3-year retention of 72% (95% CI 72-86%); evidence ungraded. Source: Table 6 (weighted mean score); Results (ART sealants) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.72 [0.72, 0.86] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Sealant retention (partially and fully retained) 2 years · partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 2 years High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants showed 2-year retention of 82% (95% CI 77-86%); evidence ungraded. Source: Table 6 (weighted mean score); Results (ART sealants) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.82 [0.77, 0.86] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Sealant retention 4 years · partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 4 years Population: Permanent teeth The pooled retention rate was 68% at 4 years. Source: Table 6 · same question in other reviews | Survival percentage 68 [61, 75] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Caries-free sealed pits and fissures 5 years · permanent dentitions with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants, 5 years Pits and fissures sealed with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants remained dentine lesion-free in 90% (95% CI 85-94%) at 5-year; evidence ungraded. Source: Table 7 (weighted mean score); Results (ART sealants) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.90 [0.85, 0.94] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Caries-free sealed pits and fissures 3 years · permanent dentitions with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants, 3 years Pits and fissures sealed with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants remained dentine lesion-free in 97% (95% CI 96-98%) at 3-year; evidence ungraded. Source: Table 7 (weighted mean score); Results (ART sealants) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.97 [0.96, 0.98] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Caries-free sealed pits and fissures 6 years · permanent dentitions with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants, 6 years Pits and fissures sealed with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants remained dentine lesion-free in 85% (95% CI 79-91%) at 6-year; evidence ungraded. Source: Table 7 (weighted mean score); Results (ART sealants) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.85 [0.79, 0.91] | 1 study | Ungraded |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants vs No comparator
Population: Permanent teeth with sealed pits and fissures
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Caries-free sealed pits and fissures 5 years · permanent dentitions with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants, 5 years The pooled caries-free rate was 90% at 5 years. Source: Table 7 · same question in other reviews | Caries-free percentage 90 [85, 94] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Caries-free sealed pits and fissures 2 years · permanent dentitions with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants, 2 years The pooled caries-free rate was 100% at 2 years. Source: Table 7 · same question in other reviews | Caries-free percentage 100 [98, 100] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Caries-free sealed pits and fissures 6 years · permanent dentitions with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants, 6 years The pooled caries-free rate was 85% at 6 years. Source: Table 7 · same question in other reviews | Caries-free percentage 85 [79, 91] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Caries-free sealed pits and fissures 1 year · permanent dentitions with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants, 1 year The pooled caries-free rate was 100% at 1 year. Source: Table 7 · same question in other reviews | Caries-free percentage 100 [99, 100] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Caries-free sealed pits and fissures 4 years · permanent dentitions with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants, 4 years The pooled caries-free rate was 93% at 4 years. Source: Table 7 · same question in other reviews | Caries-free percentage 93 [91, 96] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Caries-free sealed pits and fissures 3 years · permanent dentitions with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants, 3 years The pooled caries-free rate was 97% at 3 years. Source: Table 7 · same question in other reviews | Caries-free percentage 97 [96, 98] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
AMSTAR 2 appraisal
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | No | No | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | No | No | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: N/A · NRSI: No | NRSI: No · RCT: No | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: N/A · NRSI: Yes | NRSI: No · RCT: No | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | No | no |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | No | no |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | No | No | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | No | no |
| Overall | Critically Low | Critically Low | yes |
Included primary studies 29
Open as a trial list| Study | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial PICO | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ersin et al. 2006 A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach:… PMID:17082278 | 3 other reviews | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Honkala et al. 2003 The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach to restoring primary teeth in a standard dental clinic. PMID:12752916 | 2 other reviews | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Taifour et al. 2002 Effectiveness of glass-ionomer (ART) and amalgam restorations in the deciduous dentition: results after 3 years. PMID:12459617 | 2 other reviews | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Beiruti et al. 2006 Caries-preventive effect of a one-time application of composite resin and glass ionomer sealants after 5 years. PMID:16352882 | 1 other review | Caries-free sealed pits and fissures | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Louw et al. 2002 One-year evaluation of atraumatic restorative treatment and minimum intervention techniques on primary teeth. PMID:12494713 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Cefaly et al. 2007 Clinical evaluation of multiple-surface ART restorations: 12 month follow-up. PMID:18482515 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Ercan et al. 2009 A field-trial of two restorative materials used with atraumatic restorative treatment in rural Turkey: 24-month results. PMID:19668990 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Farag et al. 2009 5-Year survival of ART restorations with and without cavity disinfection. PMID:19342148 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Frencken et al. 1998 ART restorations and glass ionomer sealants in Zimbabwe: survival after 3 years. PMID:9870536 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Frencken et al. 2006 Survival of ART and amalgam restorations in permanent teeth of children after 6.3 years. PMID:16798862 | this review only | Restoration survival | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Gao 2003 Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional restorative procedures in a hospital clinic: evaluation after 30 months. PMID:12674356 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Ho et al. 1999 A 2-year clinical study of two glass ionomer cements used in the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique. PMID:10385357 | this review only | Restoration survival | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Holmgren et al. 2000 ART restorations and sealants placed in Chinese school children--results after three years. PMID:10901411 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Kikwilu et al. 2001 Survival of Fuji IX ART fillings in permanent teeth of primary school children in Tanzania. PMID:11921563 | this review only | Restoration survival | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Lo et al. 2007 Six-year follow up of atraumatic restorative treatment restorations placed in Chinese school children. PMID:17822487 | this review only | Restoration survival | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Luo 1999 / Lo 2001 An Operative Technique for Retinal Detachment: (Section of Ophthalmology). PMID:19992001 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Luo et al. 1999 (and Lo et al. 2001) Clinical investigation of a high-strength glass ionomer restorative used with the ART technique in Wuhan, China: one-year results. PMID:10863422 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Menezes et al. 2006 Clinical evaluation of atraumatic restorations in primary molars: a comparison between 2 glass ionomer cements. PMID:16948370 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Mickenautsch et al. 1999 The impact of the ART approach on the treatment profile in a mobile dental system (MDS) in South Africa. PMID:10858745 | this review only | Restoration survival | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| PAHO 2006 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Restoration survival | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Pan American Health Organization 2006 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Rahimtoola & Van Amerongen 2002 Comparison of two tooth-saving preparation techniques for one-surface cavities. PMID:12119808 | this review only | Restoration survival | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Van Gemert-Schriks et al. 2007 Three-year survival of single- and two-surface ART restorations in a high-caries child population. PMID:17710452 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Vieira et al. 2006 Evaluation of glass ionomer sealants placed according to the ART approach in a community with high caries experience: 1-year follow-up. PMID:19089275 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Yassen 2009 One-year survival of occlusal ART restorations in primary molars placed with and without cavity conditioner. PMID:19619427 | this review only | Restoration survival | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Yip 2002 / Yu 2004 Perioperative and long-term complications among obese women undergoing vaginal surgery. PMID:20022004 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Yip et al. 2002 (and Gao et al. 2003) The effects of two cavity preparation methods on the longevity of glass ionomer cement restorations: an evaluation after 12 months. PMID:12085859 | this review only | Restoration survival | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Yip et al. 2002 (and Yu et al. 2004) Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars:… PMID:11887531 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Ziraps & Honkala 2002 Clinical trial of a new glass ionomer for an atraumatic restorative treatment technique in class I restorations placed in Latvian school… PMID:12123116 | this review only | Restoration survival | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
Overlap with other reviews
Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match).