Abstract
Data sources
The Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, Biomed Central, Database of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), OpenJ-Gate, Bibliografia Brasileira de Odontologia (BBO), LILACS, IndMed, Sabinet, Scielo, Scirus (Medicine), OpenSIGLE and Google Scholar databases were searched. Hand searching was performed for journals not indexed in the databases. References of included trials were checked.
Study selection
Prospective clinical trials with test and control groups with a follow up of at least one year were included.
Data extraction and synthesis
Data abstraction was conducted independently and clinical and methodologically homogeneous data were pooled using a fixed-effects model.
Results
Eighteen trials were included. From these 32 individual dichotomous datasets were extracted and analysed. The majority of the results show no differences between both types of intervention. A high risk of selection-, performance-, detection- and attrition bias was identified. Existing research gaps are mainly due to lack of trials and small sample size.
Conclusions
The current evidence indicates that the failure rate of high-viscosity GIC/ART restorations is not higher than, but similar to that of conventional amalgam fillings after periods longer than one year. These results are in line with the conclusions drawn during the original systematic review. There is a high risk that these results are affected by bias, and thus confirmation by further trials with suitably high numbers of participants is needed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Frencken JE . Evolution of the ART approach: highlights and achievements. J Appl Oral Sci 2009; 17: 78–83.
Frencken JE, Van 't Hof MA, Van Amerongen WE, Holmgren CJ . Effectiveness of single-surface ART restorations in the permanent dentition: a meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2004; 83: 120–123.
Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V, Banerjee A . Atraumatic restorative treatment versus amalgam restoration longevity: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig. 2010; 14: 233–240.
Pettar M, Zhao J, Wu T, Memetimin N, Liu Z . Atraumatic Restorative Treatment versus Conventional Restorative Treatment for Childhood Caries: A Systematic Review. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. 2011; 11: 413–418.
National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme: FiCTION – Filling Children's Teeth: Indicated Or Not?. 2012 [cited 2012 22/04/2012]; Available from: http://www.hta.ac.uk/1783.
Xia J, Wright J, Adams CE . Five large Chinese biomedical bibliographic databases: accessibility and coverage. Health Info Libr J. 2008; 25: 55–61. Epub 2008/02/07.
Kunz R, Vist G, Oxman AD . Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; (2): MR000012. Epub 2007/04/20.
Higgins J, Green SP . Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009; 6: e1000100. Epub 2009/07/22.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Address for correspondence Steffen Mickenautsch, Department of Community Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand – 7 York Rd, Parktown/Johannesburg 2193, South Africa. neem@global.co.za.
Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Failure rate of atraumatic restorative treatment using high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement compared to that of conventional amalgam restorative treatment in primary and permanent teeth: a systematic review update. Journal of Minimum Intervention in Dentistry 2012 5: 63–124
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hurst, D. Poor quality evidence suggests that failure rates for atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional amalgam are similar. Evid Based Dent 13, 46–47 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400858
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400858
This article is cited by
-
Letters to EBD
Evidence-Based Dentistry (2012)
