Table 1.
Main characteristics of the included studies.
| Author, Year | Total Number and Study Designs Included | Intervention | Comparator Group | Outcomes | Criteria | Follow-Up (Months) | Quantitative Synthesis Performed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Siokis et al., 2021 [37] |
10 RCTs (5 split-mouth and 4 parallel-arm) | Tooth-coloured materials | Between each other | Failure rate | NR | 18–48 | Six studies included |
| Chisini et al., 2018 [8] |
17 RCTs (8 split-mouth and 5 parallel-arm); 14 non-RCTs (6 parallel-arm and 1 split-mouth) | Conventional restorative materials (A, GIC, CO, RC, MRGIC, RMGIC,) and SSC | Materials, techniques, and related factors associated with restoration failure | Annual failure rate, survival rate, and success rate | Modified USPHS (n = 21); FDI (n = 2); own criteria (n = 8) | 12–48 | Not performed |
| Delgado et al., 2021 [32] |
7 RCTs (6 split-mouth); 1 non-RCT | RC which varied the resin-based composite, underlying adhesive strategy, or the application strategy/mode | Between each other | Survival rate and retention | Modified USPHS (n = 6); FDI (n = 2) | 12–36 | Not performed |
| Dias et al., 2018 [30] |
10 RCTs (6 split-mouth and 4 parallel-arm) | GIC and RMGIC | RC | Clinical performance (secondary caries, marginal discolouration/adaptation, longevity, retention, wear, and anatomical form) | Modified USPHS (n = 7); FDI (n = 2); own criteria (n = 1) | 6–48 | Nine studies included |
| Frencken et al., 2021 [36] |
6 RCTs (3 split-mouth and 3 parallel-arm) | Combination of ART and HVGIC | A and RC | Survival rate | ART (n = 4); USPHS (n = 1); ART/USPHS (n = 1) | 24–36 | Not performed |
| Innes et al., 2015 [29] |
5 RCTs (3 split-mouth and 1 parallel-arm) | Preformed crowns | Conventional restorative materials | Major failure | NR | 12–60 | Three studies included |
| Kilpatrick et al., 2007 [26] |
17 RCTs (11 split-mouth and 5 parallel-arm) | A | CO, RC, and GIC | Failure rate | ART (n = 1); USPHS (n = 10); ART/USPHS (n = 1); DPDHS (n = 1) | 24–96 | Not performed |
| Mickenautsch et al., 2009 [38] |
3 RCTs (2 split-mouth and 1 parallel-arm) | ART using GIC | A | Longevity (dichotomous success/failure rates) | ART (n = 3) | 12–36 | Two studies included |
| Mickenautsch et al., 2011 [35] |
6 RCTs (2 split-mouth, 1 parallel-arm, and 3 partial split-mouth) | GIC | A | Recurrent caries, caries on margins, and caries progression | ART (n = 2); USPHS (n = 3); DPDHS (n = 1) | 12–60 | Two studies included |
| Pires et al., 2018 [31] |
17 RCTs (10 split-mouth, 1 split-mouth in most samples, and 6 parallel-arm) | Conventional restorative materials (A, CO, RC, GIC, RMGIC, HVGIC, and MRGIC) | Between each other | Survival rate | USPHS (n = 15); FDI (n = 2) | 12–60 | Seventeen studies included |
| Ruengrungsom et al., 2018 [27] | 32 RCTs (13 split-mouth and 19 parallel-arm); 3 retrospective studies | GIC (ART and conventional) restorations | Other tested materials | AFR and qualitative description (five studies) | (Modified) USPHS (n = 15); ART (n = 10); ART/USPHS (n = 2); FDI (n = 2); Roeleveld (n = 2); Gemert–Schrik’s criteria (n = 1); own criteria (n = 8) | 18–84 | Not performed |
| Tedesco et al., 2017 [20] |
4 RCTs (2 split-mouth and 2 parallel-arm) | ART restorations with HVGIC | Conventional Class–II restorations with A and RC | Longevity, pulp damage, and caries lesion progression | Modified USPHS (n = 1); ART (n = 3) | 24–36 | Four studies included |
| Tedesco et al., 2018 [34] |
14 RCTs (5 split-mouth and 9 parallel-arm); 1 observational study | CRT, ART, and HVGIC | Between each other | Success rate and caries lesion arrestment | ART (n = 4); ART and USPHS (n = 1); USPHS (n = 1); criteria by Innes et al., 2007 (n = 2); criteria by Aguilar et al., 2007 (n = 1); criteria by Houpt et al., 1983 (n = 1); based on Miller, 1959 and Kidd, 2010 (n = 1); PUFA-Index (n = 1); visual and tactile characteristics of caries lesion arrestment (n = 2); according to the dentist’s assessment (n = 1) | 6–84 s | Thirteen studies included |
| van’t Hof et al., 2006 [28] |
7 RCTs (3 split-mouth and 4 parallel-arm); 1 longitudinal; and 1 NR | ART restorations using medium and high-viscosity GIC | Between each other | Success rate and mean AFR | Most used ART criteria | 12–36 | Ten studies included |
Abbreviations: A: Amalgam; AFR: annual failure rate; ART: atraumatic restorative treatment; CO: compomer; CRT: conventional restorative treatment; DPDHS: Danish Public Dental Health Service criteria; GIC: glass-ionomer cement; FDI: World Dental Federation; HVGIC: high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement; MRGIC: metal-reinforced glass-ionomer cement; NR: not reported; PUFA: index of clinical consequences of untreated dental caries (pulpal involvement/ulceration/fistula/abscess); RC: resin composite; RCT: randomized controlled trial; RMGIC: resin-modified glass-ionomer cement; SSC: stainless steel crown; USPHS: United States Public Health Service criteria.