Table 3.
Main conclusions drawn from the included reviews.
| Author, Year | Restorative Material Assessed (Number of Studies) | Type of Teeth | Number of Teeth Assessed (Initially/Latest Follow-Up) | Type of Cavity | Isolation | Caries Removal Technique | Conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Siokis et al., 2021 [37] |
CO (n = 4); GIC (n = 3); HVGIC (n = 1); RC (n = 8); RMGIC (n = 7) | Posterior | 1023 restorations | Class–II | NR | NR | Resin-based restorative materials (RC and CO) and RMGIC appeared to have no statistically significant differences based on a “moderate” level of evidence. |
| Chisini et al., 2018 [8] |
A (n = 6); CO (n = 9); GIC (n = 5); MRGIC (n = 4); RC (n = 6); RMGIC (n = 10); SSC (n = 3) | Posterior | 8679/7392, range: 40–1834 |
Class–I (n = 1); Class–II (n = 15); Class–I/II (n = 12); crown restorations (n = 3) |
RD (n = 11); no isolation (n = 10); yes/no (n = 3) | NR | Resin composite exhibited the lowest failure rates, whereas MRGIC exhibited the highest. SSC had the highest success rate. Higher success rates were observed in restorations of a single tooth surface and those performed with rubber dam isolation. Secondary caries was the main reason for failure. |
| Delgado et al., 2021 [32] |
RC (n = 5); adhesive systems (n = 2); surface pre-treatments (n = 1); reducing etching time of an etch-and-rinse contemporary adhesive (n = 1); novel self-adhesive composites (n = 2); application modes of a universal adhesive (n = 1); bulk-fill RC (n = 1); sonic-resin placement system in bulk (n = 1); novel base RC (n = 1); contemporary adhesives (n = 1) | NR | 723 restorations | Class–I (n = 494); Class–II (n = 229) | RD (n = 6) | CCR (n = 7); SCR (n = 1) |
Novel approaches such as bulk-fill resin composites, self-adhesive restoratives, and adhesives have comparable performance to traditional materials. All materials were deemed clinically acceptable in children. |
| Dias et al., 2018 [30] |
RMGIC (n = 6); GIC (n = 4); RC (n = 10) | Posterior | 1425/932, range:75–344/8–207 |
Class–II | RD (n = 7); CR (n = 3) | NR | GIC and RC presented a similar clinical performance for all criteria analysed, except for secondary carious lesions in which GIC presented superior performance, especially for the RMGIC and with rubber dam isolation. |
| Frencken et al., 2021 [36] |
A (n = 4); GIC (n = 6); RC (n = 2) | Posterior | 2067 restorations | Class–I/II (n = 6) | NR | NR | No statistically significant difference was found between the weighted mean survival percentages of ART/HVGIC and traditional treatments in both single- and multiple-surface restorations in the primary molars. |
| Innes et al., 2015 [29] |
PMC (n = 5); open sandwich using RMGIC or RC (n = 2); restorative materials (n = 2); aesthetic crown (n = 1); non-restorative treatment (n = 1) |
Posterior | 80–264 teeth | Multiple-surface | NR | CCR +/− PCR (n = 1); pulpotomy (n = 2) |
Crowns placed on primary teeth with carious lesions reduce the risk of major failure or pain in the long term compared to fillings. |
| Kilpatrick et al., 2007 [26] |
A (n = 17); CO (n = 8); GIC (n = 8); RC (n = 3) | Posterior | Range: 40–1035 | Class–II | RD (n = 8); no RD (n = 5) | NR | Amalgam used to restore interproximal (Class–II) cavities in primary molars can be expected to survive a minimum of 3.5 years, but potentially in excess of 7 years, remains an appropriate treatment option for the management of caries in children. |
| Mickenautsch et al., 2010 [33] |
A (n = 3); HVGIC (n = 3) | Posterior | 1951 restorations at latest follow-up, range: 5–610 |
Class–I (n = 1); Class–I/II (n = 2) | NR | NR | ART restorations with HVGIC appear to be equally successful, and their survival rate may even exceed that of amalgam fillings. |
| Mickenautsch et al., 2011 [35] |
GIC (n = 9); A (n = 9) | Posterior | Range: 32–1035 teeth | Single-surface (n = 3); multiple-surface (n = 2); combination (n = 4) | NR | NR | GIC-restored cavities show less recurrent carious lesions than cavities restored with amalgam. |
| Pires et al., 2018 [31] |
A (n = 8); CO (n = 9); GIC (n = 3); RC (n = 10); RMGIC (n = 7) | Posterior | 2687 teeth | Class–I/II (n = 7); Class–II (n = 10) | RD (n = 9); no RD (n = 6); NR (n = 2) | NR | There is no advantage among restorative treatments using CO, RMGIC, A, and RC, although GIC conventional restorations have a higher risk of failure. |
| Ruengrungsom et al., 2018 [27] |
A (n = 9); CO (n = 4); GIC (n = 7); Giomer (n = 1); HVGIC (n = 23); RC (n = 8); RMGIC (n = 13); MRGIC (n = 4) | Posterior | Conventional restorations: 3976/3381, range: 13–456; ART restorations: 6959/4588, range: 13–425 |
Class–I; Class–II; multiple-surface | RD (n = 10); partially RD (n = 1); no RD (n = 2); NR (n = 27) | NR | The conventional technique showed a higher survival rate than ART for Class–I and multi-surface restorations with GIC. For both restorative approaches, the AFRs of Class–II and multi-surface GIC restorations were increased compared to those of Class–I restorations. The main reasons for the failure of Class–I and Class–II restorations were restoration loss and chipping of the marginal ridge with approximal contact loss. |
| Tedesco et al., 2017 [20] |
A (n = 3); HVGIC (n = 4); RC (n = 1) | Posterior | ART restorations: 985/NR, range: 9–610; conventional restorations: 786/NR, range: 9–425 |
Class–II | NR | Spoon excavator (ART); NR (conventional) | ART Class–II restorations with HVGIC presented a similar survival rate compared to conventional Class–II restorations with RC/A. |
| Tedesco et al., 2018 [34] |
A (n = 4); CO (n = 2); HT (n = 2) HVGIC (n = 8); NR (n = 1); NRCT (n = 1); RC (n = 3); RMGIC (n = 1); RS (n = 2); SSC (n = 1); SDF (n = 3); UCT (n = 1) |
Posterior (probably) | 8064 teeth, range: 9–1107 |
Class–I (n = 11); Class–II (n = 10); smooth surface (n = 3) | NR | Hand instrument (ART); rotary (conventional) | CRT with resin composite demonstrated better performance compared to resin sealant. |
| van’t Hof et al., 2006 [28] |
GIC (n = 1); HVGIC (n = 8) | NR (probably posterior) | NR | Single-surface; multiple-surface | NR | NR | While single-surface ART restorations with HVGIC exhibited high survival rates, those of multi-surface ART restorations were low. |
Abbreviations: A: Amalgam; AFR: annual failure rate; ART: atraumatic restorative treatment; CCR: complete caries removal; CO: compomer; CR: cotton rolls; CRT: conventional restorative treatment; GIC: glass-ionomer cement; HT: Hall technique; HVGIC: high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement; MRGIC: metal-reinforced glass-ionomer cement; NR: not reported; NRCT: non-restorative caries treatment; PCR: partial caries removal; PMC: preformed metal crown; RC: resin composite; RMGIC: resin-modified glass-ionomer cement; RD: rubber dam; RS: resin sealing; SCR: selective caries removal; SDF: silver diamine fluoride; SSC: stainless steel crown; UCT: ultraconservative treatment.