ART restorations versus resin-modified glass ionomers fillings with drill - survival rate
Midentistry review group
*Division of Public Oral Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
Abstract
The combined results of all identified trials indicate no difference between both materials.
This abstract is prepared and maintained by Midentistry, currently published in The MI Compendium, 3rd edition, Copyright © 2009 Midentistry. The full data of this review is available in http://www.midentistry.com/secure-folder/content/3/mic11C3.asp (ISBN: 0-620-34080-0)
This record should be cited as: Midentistry. ART restorations versus resin-modified glass ionomers fillings with drill - survival rate. Minim Interv Comp Database Syst Rev 2009; 2: RV00320090316.
This version first published online: March 30, 2009
Last revised: March 30, 2009
Objectives
To assess whether in cavities of comparable size and tooth location, ART restorations have a better survival rate than restorations with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) after cavity preparation with conventional high-speed drill.
Search strategy
The trials were identified from a search of the PubMed database on: March 16, 2009 using the terms: "atraumatic restorative treatment". Reference check of included articles.
Inclusion criteria
All prospective, 2-arm, trials with relevance to review question; published in English; containing computable (dichotomous or continuous) data for both, test- and control group; with test group using the ART approach, defined as treatment approach including caries removal by hand excavation and cavity restoration with high-viscosity glass ionomer cement.
Data collection and analysis
One single trial was selected, traced and included for assessment of internal validity and for data extraction.
Main results
From the single trials 2 independent dichotomous datasets were extracted. The datasets differed in clinical and methodological aspects (heterogeneity) that may have an influence on the established success rate. In order to address heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not conducted and the results of the datasets analysed and reported separately. The identified Relative risk (RR) of 0.95 (95%CI 0.86 - 1.04) and 0.94 (95%CI 0.83 - 1.06) indicate no significant difference in the success rate of both type of restorations after 6 and 12 months, respectively.
Authors' conclusions
There is no difference between both types of restorations in their survival rates.
