Summary of findings 2. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) using composite resins compared with conventional restorative treatment using composite resins for dental caries.
| Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) using composite resins compared with conventional restorative treatment using composite resins for dental caries | |||||
|
Patient or population: people with dental caries Settings: community settings and dental clinics Intervention: ART using composite Comparison: conventional treatment using composite | |||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | ||||
| Conventional treatment | ART | ||||
| Restoration failure (primary dentition) | 362 per 1000 | 387 per 1000 (235 to 565) | OR 1.11 (0.54 to 2.29) | 57 participants/100 teeth (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 |
| Pain | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | Not measured |
| 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; 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 three levels: one level because it is a single study (indirectness) and two levels because of very serious concern regarding the risk of bias (high risk of performance bias and high risk of attrition bias). The result was also very imprecise.