Survival estimates of atraumatic restorative treatment versus traditional restorative treatment: a systematic review with meta-analyses.

Objectives The hypothesis tested was that there is no significant difference between the survival estimates of atraumatic restorative treatment/high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (ART/HVGIC) restorations, in posterior primary and permanent teeth, and traditional amalgam and resin composite restorations.Data sources The databases PubMed, DOAJ, LILACS, IndMed, Google Scholar and CNKI were searched.Data selection Using inclusion and exclusion criteria led to 14 eligible randomised trials. A low risk of bias was observed for two reports. Homogeneity was obtained for single-surface ART restorations after one and two years in the primary dentition.Data synthesis 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 primary molars and in single-surface restorations in posterior permanent teeth at years 1, 2, 3 and 5. At years 4.3 and 6.3, the difference between the two treatments was statistically significant, favouring the ART/HVGIC restorations. No statistically significant difference was found between the weighted mean survival percentages of ART/HVGIC and traditional treatments in multiple-surface restorations in posterior permanent teeth.Conclusion The ART method using HVGICs can be considered as a replacement for traditional restorations in single- and multiple-surface cavities in primary molars, and in single-surface cavities in posterior permanent teeth, particularly for amalgam.