Table 3.
Overview of survival results (in percent) SE and 95% CI of multiple-surface ART restorations using high-viscosity glass ionomers in primary posterior teeth by location and year of survival
| Authors | Location | Year of survival | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||||||||
| Survival | SE | CI | Survival | SE | CI | Survival | SE | CI | ||||
| Ersin et al. [80] | School | 83 | 4.3 | 76 | 5.3 | |||||||
| Van Gemert et al. [17] | School | 12 | 3.0 | |||||||||
| Honkala et al. [73] | Clinic | 100 | 6.5 | 83 | 11.5 | |||||||
| Taifour et al. [74] | Clinic | 72 | 2.0 | 60 | 2.3 | 49 | 2.5 | |||||
| Yip et al. [75] and Yu et al. [76]a | Clinic | 66 | 12.8 | 49 | 13.8 | |||||||
| Yip et al. [75] and Yu et al. [76]b | Clinic | 65 | 10.5 | 55 | 11.0 | |||||||
| Louw et al. [77] | School | 73 | 3.8 | |||||||||
| Luo et al. [78] and Lo et al. [79] | School | 54 | 10.0 | 43 | 9.8 | |||||||
| Menezes et al. [34] | Clinic | 31 | 10.8 | |||||||||
| Weighted mean score | 71 | 60–80 | 62 | 51–73 | 31 | 2–77 | ||||||
SE standard error
a,bSame study but different glass ionomer cement