1. ART versus conventional treatment studies using different materials in each arm.

ART with one material versus conventional treatment with another material
ART material	Conventional treatment material	Outcomes	Effect estimate OR (95% CI)
H‐GIC	Amalgam	Restoration failure ‐primary teeth – 2 studies (Miranda 2005; Yu 2004). Studies reporting on single + multiple lesions	2.15 (0.73 to 6.35); I2 = 0%
		Pain (primary dentition) – 1 study (Miranda 2005). Studies reporting on single + multiple lesions	1.44 (0.45 to 4.60)
GIC	Amalgam	Restoration failure ‐ primary teeth – 1 study (Ling 2003). Studies reporting on lesion type: not reported	0.78 (0.30 to 2.02)
		Restoration failure ‐ permanent, immature teeth – 1 study (Estupiñan‐Day 2006). Studies reporting on lesion type: not reported	1.71 (1.32 to 2.22)
		Pain ‐ permanent, immature teeth (Estupiñan‐Day 2006)	0.41 (0.35 to 0.47)
H‐GIC	Composite and local anaesthetic	Restoration failure ‐ primary teeth – 1 study (Luz 2012). Studies reporting on multiple lesions	8.00 (1.24 to 51.48)
		Pain (primary dentition) – 1 study (Luz 2012)	2.22 (0.51 to 9.61)
H‐GIC	RM‐GIC and local anaesthetic	Restoration failure ‐ permanent, mature teeth – 2 studies (Da Mata 2015; Lo 2006). Studies reporting on coronal/root caries	1.46 (0.74 to 2.88); I2 = 0%

CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio