Survival rate of ART restorations with high-viscosity GIC versus conventional RMGIC fillings – a quantitative systematic review

Objectives To establish whether ART restorations with high-viscosity GIC have a better survival rate than restorations with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and cavity preparation using conventional high-speed drill in cavities of comparable size and tooth location. Search strategy Trials were identified from a search of the database PubMed up to 16 March 2009 using the term: "atraumatic restorative treatment". Inclusion criteria Relevant to review question; Published in English; 2-arm (prospective) longitudinal in-vivo trial; Containing computable (dichotomous or continuous) data for both, testand control group; Test group using the ART approach (defined as treatment approach including caries removal by hand excavation and cavity restoration with high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (GIC); Review articles (for the purpose of trial search through reference check). Data collection and analysis One trial was identified of which 2 individual datasets were extracted and analysed. Main results The results show a Relative risk (RR) of 0.95 (95%CI 0.86 – 1.04) after 6 months and RR 0.94 (95% 0.83 – 1.06) after 1 year. The results of both datasets indicate no difference between the two types of procedures. No meta-analysis was done. Conclusions The systematic literature search found 1 trial in line with the inclusion criteria, of which 2 individual datasets were extracted and analysed. The computed Relative Risk indicated no statistically significant difference in the restoration survival rate. More high quality clinical trials are needed. It is recommended that reporting of such future trials should follow the CONSORT statement.