Ling 2003.

Methods	Design: split‐mouth RCT Number of participants: 106 Setting: hospital Country: China Unit of randomisation: tooth Unit of analysis: tooth pairs Follow‐up: 6, 12 and 24 months Dropout: none
Participants	Number randomised (participants): 106 participants/212 teeth (106 ART group and 106 CT group) Number analysed: 106 children/212 teeth Age mean and SD (range): (6‐8 years) Gender: 53 male (50%) and 53 female (50%) Average DMFT score: not reported Dentition: primary Type of caries lesion: not reported Inclusion criteria: 6‐8‐year‐old children in outpatient department in Wuxi Stomatological hospital Symmetrical primary molars shallow and superficial dentin informed Consent obtained from parents Exclusion criteria: Symptom of pulpitis and periapical periodontitis Caries lesion extended to > 2/3 occlusal surface
Interventions	Two treatment arms: Group 1: ART approach + GIC Group 2: CT + amalgam For ART group the cavities were filled with FX glass ionomer cement (Japan Co., Ltd), after removing carious tooth tissues and undermined enamel with a sharp excavator. In CT the cavities were filled with silver amalgam (China Iron & Steel Research Institute Group), after removing carious tooth tissues and preparation of cavities with high‐speed turbine drill. Use of anaesthesia was not reported in any group. All interventions were conducted by the same dentist
Outcomes	Succes rate was evaluated by scoring: 0 = filling was intact; 1 = defect of filling edge was < 0.5 mm. 2 = defect of filling edge was > 0.5 mm. 3 = filling maintained but was broken; 4 = filling maintained but tooth tissue was broken; 5 = partial or completed filling was off; 6 = tooth had been refilled or retreated; 7 = tooth was missing. Level 0‐1 were success and level 2‐7 were failure. Children’s co‐operation was classified as: co‐operative: accept treatment initiatively or slightly nervous but is in place. The process of treatment went well. fear: nervous, fearful, crying and only accept treatment under language‐induction. It was a little bit difficult to do treatments. compulsive: constant crying and moving the body. Refuse treatment. Coercive method was used to make children accept treatment. It was very difficult.
Notes	Funding not stated Trial register number not reported Samples size not calculated Intraexaminer reproducibility not assessed
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: “Self‐control method and randomised method were used to allocate teeth into two groups” Comments: method not described
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comments: not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) ‐ participant	High risk	Comments: participant aware of different treatments
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) ‐ operator All outcomes	High risk	Comments: blinding not possible ‐ operator knew the intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: “all the treatments and clinical examinations were done by the same operator”
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comments: all participants were assessed
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Comments: some outcomes were not reported in the methods section but were shown in the results.
Other bias	High risk	Comments: analysis did not consider the paired data