Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19688227›Full record

SynthesisClinical oral investigations2010

Atraumatic restorative treatment versus amalgam restoration longevity: a systematic review.

Steffen Mickenautsch, Veerasamy Yengopal, Avijit Banerjee

3 registry-linked trialsAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 47 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02569047 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2015, after this paper: background citation

ART and Hall Technique for the Management of Occlusal-proximal Caries in Primary Molars: A Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Sao PauloRan2015 to 2018Enrolled131ConditionsDental CariesArmsAtraumatic Restorative Treatment, Hall Technique
NCT02730000 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Cost-efficacy of Atraumatic Restorations (ART) Using Different Encapsulated Glass Ionomer Cement

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Sao PauloRan2016 to 2018Enrolled148ConditionsDental CariesArmsART with Equia, ART with Riva Self Cure
NCT02962713 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Giomer vs Glass Ionomer Cement for ART Occlusoproximal Restorations: a Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Sao PauloRan2017 to 2019Enrolled182ConditionsDental CariesArmsART with Equia, ART with Giomer Beautifil-Bulk Restorative
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Steffen MickenautschDivision of Public Oral Health, University of the Witwatersrand, 7 York Rd, Parktown, Johannesburg 2193, South Africa. neem@global.co.za
Veerasamy Yengopal
Avijit Banerjee

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledThe aim was to report on the longevity of restorations placed using the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach compared with that of equivalent placed amalgam restorations. Five databases were systematically searched for articles up to 16 March 2009. INCLUSION CRITERIA: (1) titles/abstracts relevant to the topic; (2) published in English; (3) reporting on 2-arm longitudinal in vivo trials; (4) minimum follow-up period of 12 months. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: (1) insufficient random or quasi-random allocation of study subjects; (2) not all entered subjects accounted for at trial conclusion; (3) subjects of both groups not followed up in the same way. Fourteen from the initial search of 164 articles complied with these criteria and were selected for review. From these, seven were rejected and seven articles reporting on 27 separate datasets, accepted. Only identified homogeneous datasets were combined for meta-analysis. From the 27 separate computable dichotomous datasets, four yielded a statistically significant improvement of longevity of ART versus amalgam restorations: posterior class V, 28% over 6.3 years; posterior class I, 6% after 2.3 years and 9% after 4.3 years; posterior class II, 61% after 2.3 years. Studies investigating restorations placed in the primary dentition showed no significant differences between the groups after 12 and 24 months. In the permanent dentition, the longevity of ART restorations is equal to or greater than that of equivalent amalgam restorations for up to 6.3 years and is site-dependent. No difference was observed in primary teeth. More trials are needed in order to confirm these results.

Indexed as

Dental AmalgamDental Atraumatic Restorative TreatmentDental Restoration, PermanentFollow-Up StudiesHumansLongitudinal StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime FactorsTooth, DeciduousDental Amalgam

Identifiers

PMID19688227

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.