Summary of findings for the main comparison. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) using high‐viscosity glass ionomer cement (H‐GIC) compared with conventional restorative treatment using H‐GIC for dental caries.
| Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) using high‐viscosity glass ionomer cement (H‐GIC) compared with conventional restorative treatment using H‐GIC for dental caries | |||||
|
Patient or population: people with dental caries Settings: community settings and dental clinics Intervention: ART using H‐GIC Comparison: conventional treatment using H‐GIC | |||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | ||||
| Conventional treatment with H‐GIC | ART with H‐GIC | ||||
|
Restoration failure (primary dentition) at 12 to 24 months |
471 per 1000 | 588 per 1000 (502 to 669) | OR 1.60 (1.13 to 2.27) | 643 participants/846 teeth (5 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 |
| Pain | Mean pain (primary teeth) was 1.38 (SD 1.21) | Mean pain (primary teeth) was 0.73 (SD 1.14) | MD 0.65 lower (1.38 lower to 0.07 higher) | 40 participants (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low2 |
| Adverse events | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | Not measured |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; OR: odds ratio | |||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | |||||
1We downgraded the evidence by two levels because of very serious concerns regarding risk of bias: we judged all five studies as high risk of performance bias, three studies as high risk of attrition bias, and two studies as high risk of reporting bias. 2We downgraded the evidence by one level because it is a single study (imprecision) and one level because of serious concern regarding high risk of performance bias.