Clinical indication(s) / Claim(s)
Verbatim per manufacturer's Instructions-for-use (IFU) sheet
Claim 1: Class I restorations in deciduous teeth.
Claim 2: small Class II restorations in deciduous teeth.
Claim 3: Non-load bearing Class I restorations in permanent teeth.
Claim 4: Non-load bearing Class II restorations in permanent teeth.
Claim 5: Intermediate restorative
Claim 6: basematerial for heavy stress situation in Class I and Class II cavities using sandwich laminate technique
Claim 7: ClassV restorations
Claim 8: root surface restorations
Claim 9: Core build-up
Clinical evidence supporting the claim(s)
From full report(s) of prospective, clinical controlled trial(s)
Clinical evidence not supporting the claim(s)
From full report(s) of prospective, clinical controlled trial(s)
Clinical evidence not related to the claim(s)
From full report(s) of prospective, clinical controlled trial(s)
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II = 0 Criterion III = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II = 0 Criterion III = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II = 0 Criterion III = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 0 Criterion II = 0 Criterion III = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II = 0 Criterion III = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II = 0 Criterion III = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II = 0 Criterion III = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II = 0 Criterion III = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II = 0 Criterion III = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II = 0 Criterion III = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II = 1 Criterion III = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II = 0 Criterion III = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 0 Criterion II = 0 Criterion III = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II = 0 Criterion III = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II = 0 Criterion III = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II = 0 Criterion III = 0 / Total score = 0
Claim 1:
Lo EC, Luo Y, Fan MW, Wei SH. Clinical investigation of two glass-ionomer restoratives used with the atraumatic restorative treatment approach in China: two-years results. Caries Res. 2001 Nov-Dec;35(6):458-63.
Xiang Shanshan. Two different materials used in children with superficial caries deciduous molars Comparison of efficacy. Chin Pediatr Integr Tradit West Med 2014; 6: 437.
Yu C, Gao XJ, Deng DM, Yip HK, Smales RJ. Survival of glass ionomer restorations placed in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity preparations: 2-year results. Int Dent J. 2004 Feb;54(1):42-6.
Ersin NK, Candan U, Aykut A, Onçag O, Eronat C, Kose T. A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach: results at 24 months. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006 Nov;137(11):1529-36.
Yip HK, Smales RJ, Yu C, Gao XJ, Deng DM. Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars: one-year results. Quintessence Int. 2002 Jan;33(1):17-21.
Claim 2:
Ersin NK, Candan U, Aykut A, Onçag O, Eronat C, Kose T. A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach: results at 24 months. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006 Nov;137(11):1529-36.
Claim 3:
Mobarak EH, Shabayek MM, El-Deeb HA, Mulder J, Hassan FM, Van der Sanden WJM, Frencken JE. Survival of occlusal ART restorations using high-viscosity glass-ionomer with and without chlorhexidine: A 2-year split-mouth quadruple-blind randomized controlled clinical trial. J Adv Res. 2019 Jan 31;17:117-123.
Gao W, Peng D, Smales RJ, Yip KH. Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional restorative procedures in a hospital clinic: evaluation after 30 months. Quintessence Int. 2003 Jan;34(1):31-7.
Lo EC, Luo Y, Fan MW, Wei SH. Clinical investigation of two glass-ionomer restoratives used with the atraumatic restorative treatment approach in China: two-years results. Caries Res. 2001 Nov-Dec;35(6):458-63.
Ziraps A, Honkala E. Clinical trial of a new glass ionomer for an atraumatic restorative treatment technique in class I restorations placed in Latvian school children. Med Princ Pract. 2002;11 Suppl 1:44-7.
Claim 7:
You Xiaojuan, Chen Youwang. Clinical observation of glass ionomer repairing wedge-shaped defect. Prim Med Forum 2015; 19: 635.
Claim 8:
Hu JY, Chen XC, Li YQ, Smales RJ, Yip KH. Radiation-induced root surface caries restored with glass-ionomer cement placed in conventional and ART cavity preparations: results at two years. Aust Dent J. 2005 Sep;50(3):186-90.
Claims 4 - 6 and 9:
Claim 2:
Yu C, Gao XJ, Deng DM, Yip HK, Smales RJ. Survival of glass ionomer restorations placed in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity preparations: 2-year results. Int Dent J. 2004 Feb;54(1):42-6.
Yip HK, Smales RJ, Yu C, Gao XJ, Deng DM. Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars: one-year results. Quintessence Int. 2002 Jan;33(1):17-21.
Claim 4:
Fotiadou C, Frasheri I, Reymus M, Diegritz C, Kessler A, Manhart J, Hickel R, Klinke T, Heck K. A 3-year controlled randomized clinical study on the performance of two glass-ionomer cements in Class II cavities of permanent teeth. Quintessence Int. 2019;50(8):592-602.
Class 7:
Wang Ping Kang Pengcheng. Observation on the curative effect of three methods to repair wedge-shaped defect. J Oral Sci Res 2009; 25: 526.
