Trial reportClinical oral investigations2019
Atraumatic restorative treatment-ART in early childhood caries in babies: 4 years of randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03756025 (Atraumatic Restorative Treatment), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) in Early Childhood Caries in Brazilian Babies: a Longitudinal Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a systematic review.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2022Pooled it
- Evaluation of Treatment Approaches Adopted by General Dentists for Early Childhood Caries.Cureus · 2026Article
- Minimally Invasive Interventions for Childhood Caries: A Scoping Review of Their Applicability in Public Health and Community Settings.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Effectiveness of Dental Restorative Materials in the Atraumatic Treatment of Carious Primary Teeth in Pediatric Dentistry: A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Arresting Active Carious Lesions Using Minimal Intervention Dentistry among a Group of Preschool Children: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2024Article
- Short-term Clinical and Microbiological Performance of Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement Containing Chlorhexidine for Atraumatic Restorative Treatment.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2023Article
- Microbiological and SEM assessment of atraumatic restorative treatment in adult dentition.Clinical oral investigations · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the effectiveness of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) performed 4 years ago in babies suffering from early childhood caries (ECC), and to compare the clinical performance of ART atraumatic restorations performed with two different high-viscosity glass ionomer cements (GIC). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a longitudinal follow-up of a randomized, double-blind, split-mouth-type clinical trial. The initial sample was composed of 100 deciduous molars with occlusal lesions in 25 children with ages between 18 and 36 months who received ART with two different GICs: Ketac Molar Easymix® (3 M ESPE) and Vitro Molar® (DFL). The clinical assessments were performed by a trained, blind examiner gauged by the parameters assessed in 1, 2, and 4 years (ART and USPHS criteria).
resultsFor the analysis of the clinical performance of ARTs between the different GICs, the chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests were applied (p < 0.05). In the 4 years of evaluation, the sample was composed by 76 ARTs and 19 children, with 94.7% of the treatments having inactivated the cavity process. The total success percentage of the ARTs was 94%, 87.5%, and 82.9%, in 1, 2, and 4 years of follow-up, respectively. Moreover, among the GICs studied, this difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05) ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03756025).
conclusionART was effective in handling ECC, with an excellent clinical performance of ART restorations, for both GICs, during the 4 years of follow-up. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: ART, with both GIC studied, is an alternative therapy for ECC.
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.