ReviewJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2009
Two decades of ART: improving on success through further research.
Review in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanical performance of encapsulated restorative glass-ionomer cements for use with Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART).Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2013Article
- Retention loss of resin based fissure sealants - a valid predictor for clinical outcome?The open dentistry journal · 2013Article
- Twenty-five-year atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach: a comprehensive overview.Clinical oral investigations · 2012Review
- Evolution of the the ART approach: highlights and achievements.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledSince the introduction of the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach over twenty years ago, more than 190 research publications have appeared. The last research agenda defining research priorities for ART was published in 1999. The objective of the present work was to review existing research in the context of future research priorities for ART. MATERIAL AND
methodsAn internet survey was conducted amongst those who had published on ART or were known to be working on the ART approach, to solicit their views as to areas of future ART research. Three broad categories were defined, namely: 1. Basic and laboratory research; 2. Clinical research, and, 3. Community, Public Health, Health Services Research.
resultsA 31% response rate was achieved. The study identified a number of new areas of research as well as areas where additional research is required. These are expressed as recommendations for future ART research.
conclusionsThe ART approach is based on a robust, reliable and ever-growing evidence base concerning its clinical applications which indicates that it is a reliable and quality treatment approach. In common with all other oral health care procedures, targeted applied research is required to improve the oral health care offered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.