Next Article in Journal
Clinical Utility of Anorectal Manometry in Children with Functional Constipation: Can Anorectal Manometry Help Predict the Therapeutic Response?
Previous Article in Journal
The Clinical Value of Capillary Blood Cartridge-Based Testing in Neonatal Jitteriness: A Re-Evaluation of the Diagnostic Approach
Previous Article in Special Issue
Periodontal Status and Herpesiviridae, Bacteria, and Fungi in Gingivitis and Periodontitis of Systemically Compromised Pediatric Subjects: A Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Children
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/children12040511
children-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Effectiveness of Dental Restorative Materials in the Atraumatic Treatment of Carious Primary Teeth in Pediatric Dentistry: A Systematic Review

by
Gianna Dipalma
1,
Angelo Michele Inchingolo
1,
Lucia Casamassima
1,
Paola Nardelli
1,
Danilo Ciccarese
1,
Paolo De Sena
1,
Francesco Inchingolo
1,*,
Andrea Palermo
2,
Marco Severino
3,
Cinzia Maria Norma Maspero
4,† and
Alessio Danilo Inchingolo
1,†
1
Department of Interdisciplinary Medicine, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, 70124 Bari, Italy
2
Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Salento, 73100 Lecce, Italy
3
Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Severi Square n.1, 06132 Perugia, Italy
4
Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Milan, 20100 Milan, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work as co-last authors.
Children 2025, 12(4), 511; https://doi.org/10.3390/children12040511
Submission received: 7 March 2025 / Revised: 10 April 2025 / Accepted: 14 April 2025 / Published: 16 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Collection Advance in Pediatric Dentistry)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Aim: This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness and clinical outcomes of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) in pediatric dentistry, comparing it with other restorative techniques, analyzing material performance, assessing cost-effectiveness, and exploring the long-term success in managing dental caries. Background: ART is a minimally invasive approach that removes decayed tissue using hand instruments and restores teeth with adhesive materials like glass ionomer cement (GIC). ART is particularly valuable in pediatric dentistry due to its simplicity, reduced discomfort, and suitability for resource-limited settings. It eliminates the need for anesthesia and expensive dental equipment, making it accessible in remote and underserved areas. Studies have shown its effectiveness in providing durable restorations while improving patient comfort. Materials and Methods: This systematic review follows the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for studies published in the last ten years. The inclusion criteria included in vivo studies on children, randomized controlled trials, and case–control studies assessing ART’s effectiveness. Quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the ROBINS-I tool. Results: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria. ART effectively managed dental caries, especially with high-viscosity GIC. Comparisons with the Hall Technique and Papacarie showed that ART remains a viable, cost-effective option. Conclusions: ART is a reliable, minimally invasive technique for pediatric restorative dentistry. Its accessibility and cost-effectiveness make it suitable for low-resource settings. High-quality materials and technique modifications further enhance restoration longevity.

1. Introduction

Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) is an innovative, minimally invasive dental technique designed for treating caries, particularly in pediatric dentistry [1,2,3]. This method relies on the use of manual instruments to remove decayed tissue and the application of adhesive materials such as glass ionomer cement (GIC) to restore the tooth [4,5,6,7,8]. ART stands out for its simplicity and effectiveness, addressing the need for more gentle treatments that minimize pain and discomfort, especially for younger patients [9,10,11].
One of the main advantages of ART is its accessibility, making it particularly suitable for environments with limited resources [12,13,14,15,16]. Unlike traditional techniques, ART does not require expensive equipment or advanced technology, reducing the cost of treatment and making it available even in rural areas and disadvantaged communities, where dental facilities are often lacking [17,18,19]. ART proves to be a highly effective and affordable option for dental care in these settings, allowing patients to receive quality treatment without the need for complex machinery [20,21,22,23].
The effectiveness of ART has been extensively documented in numerous studies [24,25,26,27]. Research has shown that, when combined with materials like GIC, this technique not only provides durable restorations but also promotes a less traumatic treatment experience for children [28,29,30,31,32,33]. GIC, in addition to bonding well to the tooth structure, releases fluoride, helping to prevent further decay and improving long-term dental health [33,34,35,36,37]. Additionally, ART significantly reduces the pain and anxiety associated with traditional cavity removal with drills, fostering greater cooperation from pediatric patients [38,39,40,41].
In recent years, various studies have compared ART with other restorative techniques, such as the Hall Technique (HT) and Papacarie [22,42,43,44,45]. While the HT demonstrates higher success rates in terms of restoration longevity and retention, ART remains an effective treatment, especially when patient comfort and cost reduction are top priorities [2,46]. An interesting evolution of ART is the silver-modified ART technique, which involves the use of silver diamine fluoride (SDF) before restoration [47,48,49,50]. This combination has shown promising results, especially in high-risk caries situations, offering additional protection against further tooth deterioration [9,44,51,52,53,54].
The selection of materials plays a crucial role in the success of ART [44,55,56,57,58,59]. GIC, particularly high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (HV-GIC), have been identified as one of the best options for ensuring high performance in primary molars, reducing the risk of secondary caries and improving the longevity of restorations (Figure 1) [60,61,62,63,64,65]. Some studies have also suggested that small modifications to the technique, such as the inclusion of retentive features, could further enhance the durability of the fillings [42,43,45,66,67,68,69].
The aim of this discussion was to evaluate the effectiveness and potential of managing caries in primary teeth by analyzing ART’s clinical outcomes, the materials used, cost-effectiveness, and applicability in high-risk pediatric groups. We explored its comparison with other restorative techniques, such as the Hall Technique, Papacarie, and SMART, considering aspects like clinical success, treatment duration, and patient comfort. Additionally, we examined the performance of different materials—including GICs, compomers, and composites—focusing on their longevity, cost-effectiveness, and suitability for ART. The discussion also addressed the economic sustainability of ART, especially in low-resource settings, analyzing the balance between the initial costs and long-term benefits. Lastly, we assessed ART’s application in vulnerable pediatric populations, emphasizing its role in reducing the need for general anesthesia and specialized care. This analysis aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of ART’s strengths and limitations in pediatric dentistry.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Protocol and Registration

The current systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and International Prospective Register of Systematic Review Registry procedures (full ID: 655547) [70,71].

2.2. Search Processing

The PubMed, Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus databases were examined from 2nd January 2015 to 31st January 2025 to search for articles published in the last 10 years (Table 1). The search strategy was created by combining terms relevant to this study’s purpose. In the advanced search string of the databases, the following keywords were applied using Boolean operators to combine terms pertinent to this study’s purpose: (“Dental Caries” OR “Caries” OR “Tooth Decay”) AND (“Atraumatic Restorative Treatment” OR “ART” OR “Minimally Invasive Treatment”) AND (“Child” OR “Children” OR “Pediatric Dentistry”).

2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The reviewers worked in groups to assess all relevant studies that evaluated or compared the effectiveness of restorative dental materials for the atraumatic treatment of caries in deciduous teeth using the following inclusion criteria:
  • Open-access studies written in English;
  • Studies conducted in vivo or on humans;
  • Case-control studies, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs);
  • Studies on ART for caries in deciduous teeth in children;
  • Studies published in the last 10 years.
Studies that fulfilled at least one exclusion criterion were excluded: reviews, case reports and series, letters to the authors; animal models; studies in adults, and in vitro studies.

2.4. PICO Question

The PICO format is a framework used in qualitative research to structure clinical research questions. PICO addressed the question “Which dental restorative materials are most effective in the atraumatic treatment (e.g., ART—Atraumatic Restorative Treatment) of children with carious primary teeth in the context of pediatric dental care?”
The PICO question was developed as follows:
  • Population (P)—children with carious primary teeth;
  • Intervention (I)—atraumatic treatment management (e.g., ART—Atraumatic Restorative Treatment);
  • Comparison (C)—different dental restorative materials;
  • Outcome (O)—effectiveness of the restorative materials in managing carious lesions in pediatric dental treatment.

2.5. Data Processing

Four independent reviewers (L.C., D.C., P.D.S, and P.N.) assessed the included studies’ quality using selection criteria, methods of outcome evaluation, and data analysis. The enhanced ‘risk of bias’ tool additionally provides quality standards for selection, performance, detection, reporting, and other biases. All differences were settled through conversation or collaboration with other researchers (G.D., C.M.N.M., A.P., A.D.I., and A.M.I.). The reviewers screened the records according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The 1202 selected articles were downloaded into “Zotero 6.0.36” for organization and analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Selection and Characteristics of the Study

This PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) diagram (Figure 2) illustrates a rigorous and systematic selection process to ensure that only relevant studies were included in the final review. A total of 1322 records were identified through electronic database searches, including PubMed (n = 185), Scopus (n = 1113), and WOS (n = 24). Records from other registers were not included. Before screening, 120 duplicate records were removed, reducing the number of records for screening to 1202. The most common reason for exclusion was studies being off topic (n = 675), followed by studies related to caries in permanent teeth (n = 185). Additionally, systematic reviews (n = 121), animal studies (n = 19), and in vitro studies (n = 79) were excluded to focus only on primary research relevant to the effectiveness of restorative dental materials for the atraumatic treatment of caries in deciduous teeth. Ultimately, only 18 studies met all inclusion criteria and were considered relevant for the final analysis. This selection process ensured the robustness and reliability of this systematic review. The selection process and summary of included records are illustrated in Figure 2, while the characteristics of the selected studies are presented in Table 2.

3.2. Quality Assessment and Risk of Bias of the Included Articles

The quality of the papers included was assessed by a reviewer, L.C., using the ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions), a tool developed to assess the risk of bias in the results of non-randomized studies that compare the health effects of two or more interventions. Seven points were evaluated, and each was assigned a degree of bias. A senior reviewer (F.I.) was consulted to clear up any doubts. The quality and risk of bias assessments included eighteen studies, as reported in Table 3. This evaluation assessed six domains (D1–D6) and provided an overall judgment for each study. The color-coded system distinguishes between a low risk of bias, indicated by green, and moderate risk, marked by yellow. No red indicators are present, suggesting that none of the included studies exhibit a high risk of bias. Examining the different domains, bias due to confounding (D1) is often rated as moderate risk, indicating that some studies may not have fully controlled for all factors capable of influencing the results. However, several studies show low risk in this area, demonstrating adequate management of potential confounders. Regarding participant selection (D2), a mix of low and moderate risk is observed, suggesting that while many studies adopted appropriate selection criteria, some may have non-optimal selection elements. The classification of interventions (D3) is mostly accurate, with many studies receiving a low risk rating. However, some show moderate risk, likely due to the less clear classification of the interventions used. Similarly, the risk due to deviations from intended interventions (D4) is generally low, indicating that, in most studies, deviations from planned interventions were minimal or well-controlled. A particularly positive aspect emerges in the handling of missing data (D5), where most studies are classified as low risk, suggesting that missing data were adequately managed or that the amount of missing information was negligible. Finally, the measurement of outcomes (D6) appears to be reliable in almost all cases, with predominantly green indicators confirming the consistency and validity of the measurements performed.
Overall, the table shows that most studies present a low risk of bias, making them methodologically sound and reliable for inclusion in systematic reviews. Some studies, with yellow indicators in more than one domain, show a moderate risk and should be interpreted with greater caution, especially concerning confounding factors and participant selection. However, the absence of red indicators suggests that none of the included studies have serious methodological limitations. Consequently, the data indicate a good level of methodological quality, with only a few areas requiring attention when interpreting the results

4. Discussion

ART has emerged as one of the most effective and minimally invasive treatment approaches for dental caries, particularly in pediatric dentistry [1,4,78,79]. The method, which relies on hand instruments to remove decayed tissue and uses adhesive restorative materials such as GIC, is often advocated for its simplicity, cost-effectiveness, and suitability in environments with limited access to advanced dental equipment [19,80,81]. Over the years, various studies have explored the efficacy of ART in primary molars, comparing it to other restorative methods and investigating the performance of different materials [31,48,82,83].

4.1. Comparison of ART with Other Restorative Techniques

One of the most comprehensive studies in this field was conducted by Hesse et al. (2016), who compared ART to the HT in the treatment of occluso-proximal cavities in primary molars [62]. This randomized clinical trial, involving 124 children, found that the HT provided significantly higher success rates regarding restoration survival and retention [62]. Additionally, children undergoing the HT experienced less discomfort and fewer behavioral challenges compared to those treated with ART. Hesse et al. (2016) concluded that while ART is effective, the HT might be preferable for certain clinical situations, particularly when patient comfort and longevity are prioritized [62].
Similarly Khalek et al. (2017) explored the discomfort levels and treatment times of ART versus Papacarie, an alternative caries removal technique that uses a solution to soften the carious tissue for easier removal [72]. This study demonstrated that Papacarie, although more time-consuming, resulted in less pain and discomfort for children compared to ART [72]. This is particularly relevant in pediatric dentistry, where patient comfort and the overall experience are crucial in gaining cooperation from young patients [72].
Furthermore, Mohammed et al. (2022) extended the evaluation of ART by investigating SMART technique, which includes the use of SDF prior to restoration [76]. The study found that SMART, which combines the caries-arresting effects of SDF with the restorative capabilities of ART, showed higher success rates for caries prevention and restoration longevity [76].
A study comparing the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ART with SMART for occlusal restorations in primary molars was carried out by Aly et al. (2023) [56].
The findings showed no appreciable variations in survival rates between the two methods. However, SMART was found to be more economical, with a shorter treatment time [56]. Clinical results from both methods were similar, including minimal adaptation and no secondary caries [56]. The study found that SMART is a cost-effective and time-efficient substitute for ART that can be used in childhood for minimally invasive dentistry [56]. These findings emphasize that while ART is effective, combining it with adjuncts like SDF can yield even better results, particularly in high-risk caries situations [56,76].
Additionally, a preliminary study by de Souza et al. (2022) examined the combination of ART with Brix3000™ papain gel for caries removal in primary teeth [44]. While this approach required a longer treatment time compared to ART alone, it was equally well-accepted by children and did not result in increased discomfort [44]. These findings suggest that integrating enzymatic methods like Brix3000™ into ART could offer a viable alternative for minimally invasive caries management, although further research is needed to confirm its long-term benefits [44].

4.2. Materials Used in ART Restorations

The materials used in ART restorations play a critical role in the success and longevity of the procedure. de Medeiros Serpa et al. (2017) conducted a comparative study assessing the effectiveness of GIC versus composite resin (CR) in ART restorations [55]. The study found that while both materials effectively treated carious lesions, CR exhibited better wear resistance and marginal integrity over time [55]. However, GIC is often preferred due to its lower cost and easier application, making it more suitable for the ART technique, particularly in settings with limited resources [55].
Olegário et al. (2017) focused on the performance of different GICs in ART restorations, particularly analyzing their long-term success rates [73]. In the study, they compared GC Gold Label 9, Vitro Molar, and Maxxion R, finding that GC Gold Label 9 provided the highest success rates over a one-year follow-up period due to its superior adhesion and durability [73]. The results underscored the significance of selecting high-quality ART materials to ensure optimal restoration performance [73]. An important consideration emerging from the study by Meng Jiang et al. (2020) is that the prior application of SDF can significantly enhance the therapeutic approach for caries in primary teeth [60]. This study demonstrated that although the success rates of restorations did not differ significantly between groups treated with and without SDF, the use of SDF reduced the time required for restoration placement [60,82,84,85,86]. Therefore, the application of SDF presents itself as an advantageous option, particularly for young and reluctant children, as it shortens the procedure duration without compromising ART success (Figure 3) [60,87].
De França Lopes et al. (2018) also contributed to this field by comparing glass carbomer cement and HV-GIC [57]. Their results indicated that GIC performed better in terms of success rates over 12 months, reaffirming that HV-GIC is a reliable choice for ART restorations in primary molars [45,57,88].
Further studies by Olegário et al. (2019) and Pássaro et al. (2022) continued to explore the longevity of different materials in ART [32,74]. They compared GIC, compomer, and glass carbomer, finding that GIC outperformed both compomer and glass carbomer in terms of survival rates, particularly in high-stress occlusal areas [32,74]. This highlights the importance of material selection, especially when considering the occlusal forces and wear patterns typically seen in primary molars [32,74].
Hesse et al. (2016) investigated the longevity of approximal ART restorations in primary molars using different insertion techniques and surface protection materials [64,89,90]. They found that the bilayer technique improved restoration survival compared to the conventional method [64,91,92,93,94,95]. Additionally, applying a nano-filled coating increased the durability of conventional restorations [41,42,43,64,96,97,98]. The most common cause of failure was bulk fracture, while pulp inflammation was less frequent and equally distributed among groups [30,64,66,67,99]. No clinical factors influenced restoration survival [64]. The results suggest that combining the bilayer technique and a nano-filled coating can enhance the success of approximal ART restorations in primary teeth [52,64,100,101].

4.3. Cost-Effectiveness of ART

In addition to clinical outcomes, the cost-effectiveness of ART has been a focal point of several studies, particularly in low-resource settings. Olegário et al. (2020) explored the economic viability of different GICs, including Fuji IX, Vitro Molar, and Maxxion R, in ART restorations [75,102]. They found that while Fuji IX had a higher initial cost, its superior longevity made it the most cost-effective option in the long run [39,75,103,104,105]. This study provided compelling evidence that investing in high-quality materials can ultimately reduce the frequency of restoration failures and the need for retreatment, thereby minimizing overall treatment costs [75,106,107,108].
Similarly, Garbim et al. (2024) compared the cost-effectiveness of two encapsulated GICs: Riva Self Cure and Equia Forte [77,109,110,111]. The study showed that while both materials demonstrated similar clinical results, Riva Self Cure was more affordable and still provided reliable results, making it an ideal choice for public health initiatives where budget constraints are a significant concern [77,112,113,114]. This finding suggests that ART’s affordability can be maintained without compromising treatment outcomes, offering an economically viable solution for both private and public dental practices [77].
The long-term success of ART restorations has been widely studied, with several studies providing valuable insights into their durability. Faustino-Silva et al. (2019) conducted a four-year longitudinal study comparing two different GICs, Ketac Molar Easymix® (Seefeld, Germany) and Vitro Molar® (Rio de Janeiro, Brasil), in ART restorations [63]. They found that both materials provided excellent clinical outcomes, with Ketac Molar exhibiting slightly better retention and fewer signs of wear after four years. This study highlighted ART’s ability to provide lasting restorations, even in high-risk pediatric populations [63,115,116,117,118].
Pesaressi et al. (2024) examined the use of retentive grooves in ART restorations and found that incorporating these grooves significantly improved the survival rate of restorations over 12 months [58]. Restorations with retentive grooves were less likely to fail due to bulk fractures, a common mode of failure in ART [58,119,120,121]. This study suggests that small modifications to the ART technique, such as the addition of retentive features, can enhance the overall longevity and performance of restorations [58,122,123,124].

4.4. The Effectiveness of ART in High-Risk Pediatric Groups

ART has also proven to be particularly effective in managing caries in special populations, such as children from underserved communities. Arrow et al. (2018) explored the effectiveness of ART in rural Aboriginal communities in Western Australia, finding that ART was an invaluable tool for treating early childhood caries [59,125]. The study by Arrow et al. (2018) highlights the significant potential of ART as a primary dental care strategy for young children, particularly in rural and remote settings. ART demonstrated strong clinical effectiveness, reducing the need for general anesthesia by 44% while also improving children’s oral health-related quality of life [59,126,127]. It was well-tolerated, cost-effective, and suitable for low-resource environments. As part of a holistic care model including preventive measures and community involvement, ART offers a scalable and sustainable solution to early childhood caries in underserved populations [59,128,129].
Furthermore, Hamza et al. (2024) compared ART with other minimally invasive techniques, such as SDF and UCT in preschool-aged children [61,130]. After 12 months, ART demonstrated a caries arrest rate of 87.2%, slightly higher than SDF (84.6%) and significantly better than UCT (61.6%). While all three treatments showed 100% success at the 3-month follow-up, differences emerged over time, highlighting ART’s superior long-term efficacy compared to UCT (Figure 4). They found that ART had a significantly higher caries arrest rate compared to UCT, though it required a longer treatment time [61,118,131]. In terms of treatment logistics, ART required a longer mean treatment time (7.9 min) than SDF (3.4 min) and UCT (4.1 min). Children treated with ART also showed slightly higher levels of anxiety post-treatment, likely due to the use of instruments during the procedure. However, there were no significant differences in adverse events or parental aesthetic concerns between the groups [61,132,133].
Several clinical studies have evaluated the effectiveness and clinical outcomes of ART in pediatric dentistry. Hesse et al. (2016) reported a 52.8% survival rate for approximal ART restorations after three years, highlighting both the bilayer technique and the application of a nano-filled coating significantly improved restoration longevity compared to conventional approaches [64]. Similarly, Faustino-Silva et al. (2019) demonstrated excellent long-term outcomes in children aged 18 to 36 months, with ART restorations showing a 94% success rate at one year, 87.5% at two years, and 82.9% at four years [63].
In another randomized clinical trial, de França Lopes et al. (2018) found that Class II ART restorations using HV-GICs had a survival rate of 83% at six months, which remained high (86%) after twelve months, outperforming glass carbomer materials [57].
Olegário et al. (2019) observed three-year survival rates of 83% for GIC, 78% for compomer, and 62% for glass carbomer in occlusal ART restorations. For occlusal-proximal restorations, GIC and compomer both achieved 56% survival, while glass carbomer performed less favorably (36%) [73]. Regarding patient comfort, Abdul Khalek et al. (2017) reported that ART was associated with moderate discomfort but was better tolerated than conventional rotary instrumentation. Additionally, Papacarie was associated with significantly lower pain levels, although it required a longer application time [72].
Jiang et al. (2020) found that ART restorations in primary teeth achieved comparable 24-month success rates regardless of prior treatment with SDF, with Class I lesions performing best (50% success), while multi-surface restorations showed significantly lower rates [60]. Mohammed et al. (2022) observed higher clinical success of the SMART technique (ART + SDF) compared to ART alone at 6 and 12 months, suggesting that the addition of SDF may enhance outcomes [76]. Aly et al. (2023) confirmed these findings, reporting similar survival times (12 months) for both SMART and ART, with SMART being more cost-effective and requiring significantly less chair time [56]. Regarding material selection, Olegário et al. (2019) found that high-viscosity GIC (Fuji IX) had a significantly higher two-year survival rate (72.7%) compared to lower-cost alternatives [74].
Pássaro et al. (2022) evaluated Giomer resin composites versus GICs in occluso-proximal ART restorations and found no significant difference in survival after 24 months [32].
Additionally, studies by Garbim et al. (2024) and Pesaressi et al. (2024) highlighted the moderate survival of encapsulated GICs in Class II restorations, with Pesaressi et al. noting that incorporating retentive grooves significantly improved outcomes (from 77.2% to 91.8% at 12 months) [58,77]. Lastly, de Souza et al. (2022) confirmed that ART is a well-tolerated procedure among children, with no significant differences in pain or acceptability whether it is performed alone or in combination with Brix3000™, a papain-based gel. Collectively, these findings reinforce ART as a clinically effective, child-friendly, and economically viable approach for treating dental caries in primary teeth, particularly when enhanced by appropriate materials and techniques [44].

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, ART has demonstrated consistent effectiveness as a minimally invasive method for treating dental caries, especially in pediatric populations. Its success hinges on the careful selection of restorative materials, such as GICs, which are known for their longevity and ability to bond effectively to the tooth structure. Studies have shown that combining ART with adjunct techniques like the HT or Papacarie enhances its efficacy, particularly in complex or challenging cases. ART’s cost-effectiveness is one of its most significant advantages, particularly in low-resource settings, where it provides an accessible, budget-friendly treatment option. It is particularly valuable in underserved and rural communities, where access to advanced dental care may be limited. Furthermore, ART’s long-term success, especially with the use of high-quality GICs, solidifies its role as a reliable and versatile treatment option for managing caries in primary molars. The simplicity of ART, along with its focus on reducing patient discomfort, leads to high acceptance rates, especially among children. This results in improved cooperation and better clinical outcomes, making ART an invaluable tool in pediatric dentistry.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.N., A.M.I., L.C., D.C., P.D.S., F.I., A.P., A.D.I. and G.D.; methodology, G.D., A.M.I., P.N., A.P., F.I., L.C. and D.C.; software, A.P., F.I., P.D.S., D.C., L.C., P.N., A.M.I., M.S. and C.M.N.M.; validation, G.D., D.C., A.P., P.D.S., A.M.I., F.I. and L.C.; formal analysis, L.C., P.D.S., A.M.I., C.M.N.M., G.D., M.S., C.M.N.M., A.D.I. and D.C.; resources, D.C., P.D.S., A.P., A.M.I., F.I. and L.C.; data curation, L.C., D.C., A.P., A.M.I., P.N., C.M.N.M., M.S., F.I. and G.D.; writing—original draft preparation A.P., P.N., P.D.S., A.M.I., L.C. and F.I.; writing—review and editing, G.D., P.N., P.D.S., L.C., A.M.I., M.S., F.I., A.D.I. and D.C.; visualization, D.C., P.N., P.D.S., A.M.I., F.I. and L.C.; supervision, G.D., D.C., P.D.S., L.C., P.N., A.M.I., F.I. and A.P.; project administration, P.D.S., P.N., D.C., A.M.I., F.I., C.M.N.M. and L.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

Abbreviation used in this review.
AbbreviationDefinition
ART Atraumatic Restorative Treatment
CARGlass Carbomer
COMCompomer
CR Composite Resin
ECCEarly Childhood Caries
EFEQUIA Fil
GCRGiomer Composite Resin
GIC Glass Ionomer Cement
HTHall Technique
HV-GICHigh Viscosity Glass Ionomer Cement
RCT Randomized Clinical Trial
RSCRiva Self Cure
SDF Silver Diamine Fluoride
SEM scaleSound Eye and Motor scale
SMARTSilver-Modified Atraumatic Restorative Treatment
UCTUltraconservative Treatment

References

  1. Yunus, G.Y.; Sharma, H.; Itagi, A.B.H.; Srivastava, H. A Comparative Survival Analysis of High Viscosity Glass Ionomer Restorations Using Conventional Cavity Preparation and Atraumatic Restorative Treatment Technique in Primary Molars: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Dent. Res. J. 2021, 18, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Al-Halabi, M.; Salami, A.; Alnuaimi, E.; Kowash, M.; Hussein, I. Assessment of Paediatric Dental Guidelines and Caries Management Alternatives in the Post COVID-19 Period. A Critical Review and Clinical Recommendations. Eur. Arch. Paediatr. Dent. 2020, 21, 543–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Keys, W.; Carson, S.J. Rubber Dam May Increase the Survival Time of Dental Restorations. Evid.-Based Dent. 2017, 18, 19–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wambier, L.M.; Gonçalves, A.d.R.; Wambier, D.S.; Reis, A.; Chibinski, A.C.R. Adherence to the CONSORT Statement of Randomized Clinical Trials on ART Restorations in Children: Current Status and Reporting Characteristics. Braz. Oral Res. 2022, 36, e017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wambier, D.S.; Chibinski, A.C.R.; Wambier, L.M.; de Lima Navarro, M.F.; Banerjee, A. Minimum Intervention Oral Care Management of Early Childhood Caries: A 17-Year Follow-up Case Report. Eur. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2023, 24, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ruff, R.R.; Barry Godín, T.J.; Small, T.M.; Niederman, R. Silver Diamine Fluoride, Atraumatic Restorations, and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life in Children Aged 5-13 Years: Results from the CariedAway School-Based Cluster Randomized Trial. BMC Oral Health 2022, 22, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Guerra, D.; Severino, M.; Caruso, S.; Rastelli, S.; Gatto, R. The Importance of Using Physical Tridimensional Models for the Management and Planning of Extended Osseous Odontogenic Lesions. Dent. J. 2021, 9, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Iacomino, E.; Rastelli, S.; Capogreco, M.; Severino, M.; Gallottini, S.G.; Grivetto, F. A Pterygoid Implants in Severe Posterior Maxillary Atrophy: A Case Report. Oral Implantol. A J. Innov. Adv. Tech. Oral Health 2024, 16, 88–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Umeda, J.E.; Chichakly, K.; Passos, G.F.; Terada, R.S.S.; Pascotto, R.C.; Fujimaki, M. System Dynamics Modeling for Tooth Decay Treatment in Brazilian Children. Braz. Oral Res. 2020, 34, e017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Boachie, M.K.; Molete, M.; Hofman, K.; Thsehla, E. Cost-Effectiveness of Dental Caries Prevention Strategies in South African Schools. BMC Oral Health 2023, 23, 814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Giacaman, R.A.; Muñoz-Sandoval, C.; Neuhaus, K.W.; Fontana, M.; Chałas, R. Evidence-Based Strategies for the Minimally Invasive Treatment of Carious Lesions: Review of the Literature. Adv. Clin. Exp. Med. 2018, 27, 1009–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Moura, M.S.; de Sousa, G.P.; Brito, M.H.S.F.; Silva, M.C.C.; de Lima, M.d.D.M.; Moura, L.F.A.d.D.; Lima, C.C.B. Does Low-Cost GIC Have the Same Survival Rate as High-Viscosity GIC in Atraumatic Restorative Treatments? A RCT. Braz. Oral Res. 2020, 33, e125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ananda, S.-R.; Mythri, H. A Comparative Study of Fluoride Release from Two Different Sealants. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2014, 6, e497–e501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sitthisettapong, T.; Tasanarong, P.; Phantumvanit, P. Strategic Management of Early Childhood Caries in Thailand: A Critical Overview. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 664541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Simon, A.K.; Bhumika, T.V.; Nair, N.S. Does Atraumatic Restorative Treatment Reduce Dental Anxiety in Children? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur. J. Dent. 2015, 9, 304–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lombardo, G.; Pagano, S.; Cianetti, S.; Capobianco, B.; Orso, M.; Negri, P.; Paglia, M.; Friuli, S.; Paglia, L.; Gatto, R.; et al. Sub-Ablative Laser Irradiation to Prevent Acid Demineralisation of Dental Enamel. A Systematic Review of Literature Reporting in Vitro Studies. Eur. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2019, 20, 295–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Shivanna, M.M.; Ganesh, S.; Khanagar, S.B.; Naik, S.; Divakar, D.D.; Al-Kheraif, A.A.; Jhugroo, C. Twelve-Month Evaluation of the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment Approach for Class III Restorations: An Interventional Study. World J. Clin. Cases 2020, 8, 3999–4009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shilpashree, K.B.; Chaithra, V.; Bhat, A.; Krishnamurthy, A. Survival Rate and Cost-Effectiveness of Conventional and Atraumatic Restorative Treatment Restorations among Anganwadi Preschool Children in Bengaluru City: A Follow-up Study. Indian J. Community Med. 2021, 46, 226–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Schwendicke, F.; Walsh, T.; Lamont, T.; Al-Yaseen, W.; Bjørndal, L.; Clarkson, J.E.; Fontana, M.; Gomez Rossi, J.; Göstemeyer, G.; Levey, C.; et al. Interventions for Treating Cavitated or Dentine Carious Lesions. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2021, 7, CD013039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hu, X.; Fan, M.; Mulder, J.; Frencken, J.E. Caries Experience in the Primary Dentition and Presence of Plaque in 7-Year-Old Chinese Children: A 4-Year Time-Lag Study. J. Int. Soc. Prev. Community Dent. 2015, 5, 205–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ruff, R.R. Caries Incidence in School-Based Prevention Programs in the Presence of Interval Censoring. Children 2024, 11, 1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Inchingolo, A.M.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Latini, G.; Garofoli, G.; Sardano, R.; De Leonardis, N.; Dongiovanni, L.; Minetti, E.; Palermo, A.; Dipalma, G.; et al. Caries Prevention and Treatment in Early Childhood: Comparing Strategies. A Systematic Review. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2023, 27, 11082–11092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kumar, K.V.K.S.; Prasad, M.G.; Sandeep, R.V.; Reddy, S.P.; Divya, D.; Pratyusha, K. Chemomechanical Caries Removal Method versus Mechanical Caries Removal Methods in Clinical and Community-Based Setting: A Comparative in Vivo Study. Eur. J. Dent. 2016, 10, 386–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Amend, S.; Boutsiouki, C.; Bekes, K.; Kloukos, D.; Lygidakis, N.N.; Frankenberger, R.; Krämer, N. Clinical Effectiveness of Restorative Materials for the Restoration of Carious Primary Teeth without Pulp Therapy: A Systematic Review. Eur. Arch. Paediatr. Dent. 2022, 23, 727–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hesse, D.; Bonifácio, C.C.; Kleverlaan, C.J.; Raggio, D.P. Clinical Wear of Approximal Glass Ionomer Restorations Protected with a Nanofilled Self-Adhesive Light-Cured Protective Coating. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2018, 26, e20180094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Roberts-Thomson, K.F.; Ha, D.H.; Wooley, S.; Meihubers, S.; Do, L.G. Community Trial of Silver Fluoride Treatment for Deciduous Dentition Caries in Remote Indigenous Communities. Aust. Dent. J. 2019, 64, 175–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Khan, N.; Garg, N.; Pathivada, L.; Yeluri, R. Comparative Evaluation of the Survival Rates of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment Restorations Using Bilayer Technique along with Nanofilled Coating in Primary Molars: A Clinical Study. Int. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2024, 17, S55–S60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Anvekar, M.P.; Virupaxi, S.G.; Yavagal, C.; Kulkarni, S.; Pai, R.; Patil, V.V.C. Evaluating the Efficacy of Cavity Disinfection Using Methylene Blue Dye with 660-Nm Diode Laser on Primary Molars: An in Vivo Study. J. Indian Soc. Pedod. Prev. Dent. 2024, 42, 280–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Maru, V.P.; Kulkarni, P.; Chauhan, R.; Bapat, S.S. Evaluation and Comparison of Silorane Resin Composite to Glass Ionomer in Occluso-Proximal Restorations of Primary Molars: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Indian Soc. Pedod. Prev. Dent. 2022, 40, 281–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Dulgergil, C.T.; Ercan, E.; Colak, H. Evaluation of School-Based Prevention Program in Turkey: Results of a 24-Month Study. Eur. J. Dent. 2016, 10, 245–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Patel, M.C.; Makwani, D.A.; Bhatt, R.K.; Raj, V.; Patel, C.; Patel, F. Evaluation of Silver-Modified Atraumatic Restorative Technique versus Conventional Pulp Therapy in Asymptomatic Deep Carious Lesion of Primary Molars—A Comparative Prospective Clinical Study. J. Indian Soc. Pedod. Prev. Dent. 2022, 40, 383–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pássaro, A.L.; Olegário, I.C.; Laux, C.M.; Oliveira, R.C.; Tedesco, T.K.; Raggio, D.P. Giomer Composite Compared to Glass Ionomer in Occlusoproximal ART Restorations of Primary Molars: 24-Month RCT. Aust. Dent. J. 2022, 67, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Grossi, J.A.; Cabral, R.N.; Ribeiro, A.P.D.; Leal, S.C. Glass Hybrid Restorations as an Alternative for Restoring Hypomineralized Molars in the ART Model. BMC Oral Health 2018, 18, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liu, B.Y.; Xiao, Y.; Chu, C.H.; Lo, E.C.M. Glass Ionomer ART Sealant and Fluoride-Releasing Resin Sealant in Fissure Caries Prevention--Results from a Randomized Clinical Trial. BMC Oral Health 2014, 14, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Molina, G.F.; Faulks, D.; Mulder, J.; Frencken, J.E. High-Viscosity Glass-Ionomer vs. Composite Resin Restorations in Persons with Disability: Five-Year Follow-up of Clinical Trial. Braz. Oral Res. 2019, 33, e099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gomide, R.T.; Frencken, J.E.; Leal, S.C.; Kuijpers-Jagtman, A.M.; Faber, J. Impact of Proximal Cavities and Primary Molar Absence on Space in the Dental Arches. PeerJ 2020, 8, e8924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Alamoudi, R.A.; Basudan, S.; Mahboub, M.; Baghlaf, K. Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Dental Treatment in Children: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Analysis in Jeddah City. Clin. Cosmet. Investig. Dent. 2022, 14, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mohan, P.V.M.U.; Uloopi, K.S.; Vinay, C.; Rao, R.C. In Vivo Comparison of Cavity Disinfection Efficacy with APF Gel, Propolis, Diode Laser, and 2% Chlorhexidine in Primary Teeth. Contemp. Clin. Dent. 2016, 7, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nkwocha, F.G.; Akinyamoju, C.A.; Ogbode, S.O.; Lawal, F.B. Management of Dental Caries with Atraumatic Restorative Treatment Under Field Condition in Primary Schools in Oyo State, Nigeria. Ann. Ib. Postgrad. Med. 2019, 17, 75–80. [Google Scholar]
  40. Ballikaya, E.; Ünverdi, G.E.; Cehreli, Z.C. Management of Initial Carious Lesions of Hypomineralized Molars (MIH) with Silver Diamine Fluoride or Silver-Modified Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (SMART): 1-Year Results of a Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial. Clin. Oral Investig. 2022, 26, 2197–2205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chen, K.J.; Gao, S.S.; Duangthip, D.; Lo, E.C.M.; Chu, C.H. Managing Early Childhood Caries for Young Children in China. Healthcare 2018, 6, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. da Cunha, C.M.B.d.L.; Wambier, L.M.; Matos, T.d.P.; Malaquias, P.; Reis, A.; Loguercio, A.D.; Wambier, D.S.; Chibinski, A.C.R. New Dual-Cure Resin-Based Material in Occlusal and Occluso-Proximal Restorations of Primary Teeth: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial. Int. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2022, 15, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. da Silva, M.E.; de Sena, M.D.; Colombo, N.H.; Pereira, J.A.; Chrisostomo, D.A.; de Aguiar, S.M.; Cunha, R.F.; Duque, C. Short-Term Clinical and Microbiological Performance of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement Containing Chlorhexidine for Atraumatic Restorative Treatment. Int. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2023, 16, S27–S32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. de Souza, T.F.; Martins, M.L.; Tavares-Silva, C.M.; Fonseca-Gonçalves, A.; Maia, L.C. Treatment Time, Pain Experience and Acceptability of the Technique for Caries Removal in Primary Teeth Using the ART Approach with or without Brix3000TM Papain Gel: A Preliminary Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial. Eur. Arch. Paediatr. Dent. 2022, 23, 777–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dipalma, G.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Guglielmo, M.; Morolla, R.; Palumbo, I.; Riccaldo, L.; Mancini, A.; Palermo, A.; Malcangi, G.; Inchingolo, A.M.; et al. Nanotechnology and Its Application in Dentistry: A Systematic Review of Recent Advances and Innovations. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 5268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Inchingolo, A.D.; Malcangi, G.; Semjonova, A.; Inchingolo, A.M.; Patano, A.; Coloccia, G.; Ceci, S.; Marinelli, G.; Di Pede, C.; Ciocia, A.M.; et al. Oralbiotica/Oralbiotics: The Impact of Oral Microbiota on Dental Health and Demineralization: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Children 2022, 9, 1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Malcangi, G.; Patano, A.; Morolla, R.; De Santis, M.; Piras, F.; Settanni, V.; Mancini, A.; Di Venere, D.; Inchingolo, F.; Inchingolo, A.D.; et al. Analysis of Dental Enamel Remineralization: A Systematic Review of Technique Comparisons. Bioengineering 2023, 10, 472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Patano, A.; Malcangi, G.; Sardano, R.; Mastrodonato, A.; Garofoli, G.; Mancini, A.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Di Venere, D.; Inchingolo, F.; Dipalma, G.; et al. White Spots: Prevention in Orthodontics-Systematic Review of the Literature. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kateeb, E.T.; Warren, J.J.; Gaeth, G.J.; Momany, E.T.; Damiano, P.C. Understanding Pediatric Dentists’ Dental Caries Management Treatment Decisions: A Conjoint Experiment. JDR Clin. Trans. Res. 2016, 1, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Nadar, B.; Gv, U.; Almalki, S.; Gowdar, I. Understanding Decision Making for the Use of Atraumatic Restorative Approach Based on Non-Clinical Factors by Indian Pedodontists—A Conjoint Analysis. F1000Res 2024, 13, 1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Kateeb, E.T.; Warren, J.; Gaeth, G.; Damiano, P.; Momany, E.; Kanellis, M.J.; Weber-Gasparoni, K.; Ansley, T. The Willingness of US Pediatric Dentists to Use Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) with Their Patients: A Conjoint Analysis. J. Public Health Dent. 2014, 74, 234–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Gupta, A.; Shah, S.G.; Kaul, B.; Mahajan, N.; Gupta, R.K. The Epiphany of Post-COVID: A Watershed for Pediatric Dentistry. Int. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2021, 14, 802–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Ghanem, A.Y.; Talaat, D.M.; Essawy, M.M.; Bakry, N. The Effectiveness of Carie-CareTM, Chemomechanical Caries Removal Technique in Primary Teeth: Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. BMC Oral Health 2023, 23, 882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Oz, E.; Kırzıoglu, Z.; Kale, C. The Clinical Success of ART Restorations and Hall Technique in Primary Molars: A Randomized 18-Month Follow-up Study. Restor. Dent. Endod. 2023, 48, e19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. de Medeiros Serpa, E.B.; Clementino, M.A.; Granville-Garcia, A.F.; Rosenblatt, A. The Effect of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment on Adhesive Restorations for Dental Caries in Deciduous Molars. J. Indian Soc. Pedod. Prev. Dent. 2017, 35, 167–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Aly, A.A.M.; Aziz, A.M.A.; Elghazawy, R.K.; El Fadl, R.K.A. Survival Analysis and Cost Effectiveness of Silver Modified Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (SMART) and ART Occlusal Restorations in Primary Molars: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Dent. 2023, 128, 104379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. de França Lopes, C.M.C.; Schubert, E.W.; Martins, A.S.; Loguercio, A.D.; Reis, A.; Chibinski, A.C.R.; Wambier, D.S. Randomized Clinical Trial of ART Class II Restorations Using Two Glass Ionomer Cements: One-Year Follow-Up. Pediatr. Dent. 2018, 40, 98–104. [Google Scholar]
  58. Pesaressi, E.; Zelada-Lopez, D.; Cosme, T.; Diaz, J.; Huanqui, M.; Fidela de Lima Navarro, M.; Villena, R.S. Randomised Clinical Trial of Class II ART Restoration in Primary Teeth with and without Retentive Grooves after 12 Months. Eur. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2024, 25, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Arrow, P.; McPhee, R.; Atkinson, D.; Mackean, T.; Kularatna, S.; Tonmukayakul, U.; Brennan, D.; Palmer, D.; Nanda, S.; Jamieson, L. Minimally Invasive Dentistry Based on Atraumatic Restorative Treatment to Manage Early Childhood Caries in Rural and Remote Aboriginal Communities: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Res. Protoc. 2018, 7, e10322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jiang, M.; Wong, M.C.M.; Chu, C.H.; Dai, L.; Lo, E.C.M. A 24-Month Randomized Controlled Trial on the Success Rates of Restoring Untreated and SDF-Treated Dentine Caries Lesions in Primary Teeth with the ART Approach. J. Dent. 2020, 100, 103435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hamza, B.E.; Attia, N.M.; Abdellatif, A.M.; Hegazy, S.A. Arresting Active Carious Lesions Using Minimal Intervention Dentistry among a Group of Preschool Children: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Int. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2024, 17, 1018–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Hesse, D.; de Araujo, M.P.; Olegário, I.C.; Innes, N.; Raggio, D.P.; Bonifácio, C.C. Atraumatic Restorative Treatment Compared to the Hall Technique for Occluso-Proximal Cavities in Primary Molars: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial. Trials 2016, 17, 169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Faustino-Silva, D.D.; Figueiredo, M.C. Atraumatic Restorative Treatment-ART in Early Childhood Caries in Babies: 4 Years of Randomized Clinical Trial. Clin. Oral Investig. 2019, 23, 3721–3729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Hesse, D.; Bonifácio, C.C.; Guglielmi, C.d.A.B.; Bönecker, M.; van Amerongen, W.E.; Raggio, D.P. Bilayer Technique and Nano-Filled Coating Increase Success of Approximal ART Restorations: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Int. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2016, 26, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Inchingolo, A.D.; Malcangi, G.; Inchingolo, A.M.; Piras, F.; Settanni, V.; Garofoli, G.; Palmieri, G.; Ceci, S.; Patano, A.; De Leonardis, N.; et al. Benefits and Implications of Resveratrol Supplementation on Microbiota Modulations: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 4027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Duangthip, D.; Chen, K.J.; Gao, S.S.; Lo, E.C.M.; Chu, C.H. Managing Early Childhood Caries with Atraumatic Restorative Treatment and Topical Silver and Fluoride Agents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Duggal, M.; Gizani, S.; Albadri, S.; Krämer, N.; Stratigaki, E.; Tong, H.J.; Seremidi, K.; Kloukos, D.; BaniHani, A.; Santamaría, R.M.; et al. Best Clinical Practice Guidance for Treating Deep Carious Lesions in Primary Teeth: An EAPD Policy Document. Eur. Arch. Paediatr. Dent. 2022, 23, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Duque, C.; Aida, K.L.; Pereira, J.A.; Teixeira, G.S.; Caldo-Teixeira, A.S.; Perrone, L.R.; Caiaffa, K.S.; Negrini, T.D.C.; de Castilho, A.R.F.; Costa, C.A.S. In Vitro and in Vivo Evaluations of Glass-Ionomer Cement Containing Chlorhexidine for Atraumatic Restorative Treatment. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2017, 25, 541–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. ElGhandour, R.K.; ElTekeya, M.M.H.; Sharaf, A.A. Effectiveness of Silver Diamine Fluoride in Arresting Early Childhood Caries: A Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial. Eur. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2024, 25, 202–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.A.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2009, 62, e1–e34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. PRISMA Group Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Abdul Khalek, A.; Elkateb, M.A.; Abdel Aziz, W.E.; El Tantawi, M. Effect of Papacarie and Alternative Restorative Treatment on Pain Reaction during Caries Removal among Children: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2017, 41, 219–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Olegário, I.C.; Pacheco, A.L.d.B.; de Araújo, M.P.; Ladewig, N.d.M.; Bonifácio, C.C.; Imparato, J.C.P.; Raggio, D.P. Low-Cost GICs Reduce Survival Rate in Occlusal ART Restorations in Primary Molars after One Year: A RCT. J. Dent. 2017, 57, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Olegário, I.C.; Hesse, D.; Mendes, F.M.; Bonifácio, C.C.; Raggio, D.P. Glass Carbomer and Compomer for ART Restorations: 3-Year Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial. Clin. Oral Investig. 2019, 23, 1761–1770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Olegário, I.C.; Ladewig, N.d.M.; Hesse, D.; Bonifácio, C.C.; Braga, M.M.; Imparato, J.C.P.; Mendes, F.M.; Raggio, D.P. Is It Worth Using Low-Cost Glass Ionomer Cements for Occlusal ART Restorations in Primary Molars? 2-Year Survival and Cost Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial. J. Dent. 2020, 101, 103446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Mohammed, S.M.E.; Awad, S.M.; Wahba, A.H. Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Silver-Modified Atraumatic Restorative Technique vs Atraumatic Restorative Technique in Primary Teeth: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2022, 23, 1140–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Garbim, J.R.; Saihara, C.S.; Olegário, I.C.; Hesse, D.; Araujo, M.P.; Bonifácio, C.C.; Braga, M.M.; Raggio, D.P. 2-Year Survival and Cost Analysis of Occlusoproximal ART Restorations Using Encapsulated Glass Ionomer Cement in Primary Molars: A Randomized Controlled Trial. BMC Oral Health 2024, 24, 647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Wasnik, M.; Sharma, A.; Shah, H.G.; Sodani, V.; Cg, A. Assessment of Salivary Mutans Streptococci Counts to Atraumatic Restorative Treatment Among Children: A Randomised Controlled Trial. Cureus 2022, 14, e32126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Wang, Y.; Li, C.; Yuan, H.; Wong, M.C.; Zou, J.; Shi, Z.; Zhou, X. Rubber Dam Isolation for Restorative Treatment in Dental Patients. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016, 9, CD009858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Schwendicke, F.; Leal, S.; Schlattmann, P.; Paris, S.; Dias Ribeiro, A.P.; Gomes Marques, M.; Hilgert, L.A. Selective Carious Tissue Removal Using Subjective Criteria or Polymer Bur: Study Protocol for a Randomised Controlled Trial (SelecCT). BMJ Open 2018, 8, e022952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Satyarup, D.; Mohanty, S.; Nagarajappa, R.; Mahapatra, I.; Dalai, R.P. Comparison of the Effectiveness of 38% Silver Diamine Fluoride and Atraumatic Restorative Treatment for Treating Dental Caries in a School Setting: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Dent. Med. Probl. 2022, 59, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Piggott, S.; Carter, S.; Forrest, H.; Atkinson, D.; Mackean, T.; Mcphee, R.; Arrow, P. Parent Perceptions of Minimally Invasive Dental Treatment of Australian Aboriginal Pre-School Children in Rural and Remote Communities. Rural Remote Health 2021, 21, 6862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Perrone, B.R.; Bottesini, V.C.; Duarte, D.A. Minimal Intervention Dentistry: What Is Its Clinical Application and Effectiveness in Different Continents?—A Scoping Review. J. Conserv. Dent. Endod. 2024, 27, 134–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Muntean, A.; Mzoughi, S.M.; Pacurar, M.; Candrea, S.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Inchingolo, A.M.; Ferrante, L.; Dipalma, G.; Inchingolo, F.; Palermo, A.; et al. Silver Diamine Fluoride in Pediatric Dentistry: Effectiveness in Preventing and Arresting Dental Caries-A Systematic Review. Children 2024, 11, 499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Inchingolo, A.M.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Viapiano, F.; Ciocia, A.M.; Ferrara, I.; Netti, A.; Dipalma, G.; Palermo, A.; Inchingolo, F. Treatment Approaches to Molar Incisor Hypomineralization: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 7194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Laforgia, A.; Inchingolo, A.M.; Inchingolo, F.; Sardano, R.; Trilli, I.; Di Noia, A.; Ferrante, L.; Palermo, A.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Dipalma, G. Paediatric Dental Trauma: Insights from Epidemiological Studies and Management Recommendations. BMC Oral Health 2025, 25, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Malcangi, G.; Patano, A.; Guglielmo, M.; Sardano, R.; Palmieri, G.; Di Pede, C.; de Ruvo, E.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Mancini, A.; Inchingolo, F.; et al. Precision Medicine in Oral Health and Diseases: A Systematic Review. J. Pers. Med. 2023, 13, 725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Inchingolo, F.; Inchingolo, A.M.; Latini, G.; Pezzolla, C.; Trilli, I.; Sardano, R.; Palermo, A.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Dipalma, G. Analysis of Microbiota in Black Stain of Children and Its Impact on Caries Risk. A Systematic Review. Eur. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2024, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Alqahtani, A.M.; Alshihri, Y.D.; Alhumaid, A.E.; Al Nafaie, M.M.; Alnaim, A.A. Advancements in Minimally Invasive Techniques in Pediatric Dentistry: A Review. Cureus 2025, 17, e76929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Amorim Júnior, L.A.; Rodrigues, V.B.M.; Costa, L.R.; Corrêa-Faria, P. Is Dental Anxiety Associated with the Behavior of Sedated Children? Braz. Oral Res. 2021, 35, e088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Araujo, M.P.; Innes, N.P.; Bonifácio, C.C.; Hesse, D.; Olegário, I.C.; Mendes, F.M.; Raggio, D.P. Atraumatic Restorative Treatment Compared to the Hall Technique for Occluso-Proximal Carious Lesions in Primary Molars; 36-Month Follow-up of a Randomised Control Trial in a School Setting. BMC Oral Health 2020, 20, 318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Arrow, P.; Forrest, H. Atraumatic Restorative Treatments Reduce the Need for Dental General Anaesthesia: A Non-Inferiority Randomized, Controlled Trial. Aust. Dent. J. 2020, 65, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Arrow, P.; Klobas, E. Minimal Intervention Dentistry for Early Childhood Caries and Child Dental Anxiety: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Aust. Dent. J. 2017, 62, 200–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Bendoraitiene, E.A.; Andruskeviciene, V.; Kscenaviciute, G.; Srebaliene, E.; Maciulaityte, I. Peculiarities of Dental Treatment among Paediatric Oncological Patients: A Case Report. J. Oral Maxillofac. Res. 2020, 11, e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Beretta, M.; Federici Canova, F.; Moscati, M.; Campanella, V.; Gallusi, G. State-of-the-Art on MIH. Part. 2 MIH Clinical Management Using Ozone. Eur. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2020, 21, 163–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Contac, L.-R.; Pop, S.I.; Bica, C.I. Enhancing Pediatric Comfort: A Comprehensive Approach to Managing Molar-Incisor Hypomineralization with Preemptive Analgesia and Behavioral Strategies. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2024, 48, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Corrêa-Faria, P.; Viana, K.A.; Raggio, D.P.; Hosey, M.T.; Costa, L.R. Recommended Procedures for the Management of Early Childhood Caries Lesions—A Scoping Review by the Children Experiencing Dental Anxiety: Collaboration on Research and Education (CEDACORE). BMC Oral Health 2020, 20, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. D’Costa, V.G.; Singhal, D.K.; Acharya, S. Efficacy of GC Gold Label 9 and GC Miracle Mix(®) Restorations Using Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) in Rural Settings: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2020, 44, 148–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Dorri, M.; Martinez-Zapata, M.J.; Walsh, T.; Marinho, V.C.; Sheiham Deceased, A.; Zaror, C. Atraumatic Restorative Treatment versus Conventional Restorative Treatment for Managing Dental Caries. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017, 12, CD008072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Gonçalves, C.F.; E Silva, M.V.L.; Costa, L.R.; de Toledo, O.A. One-Year Follow-up of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment(ART) for Dental Caries in Children Undergoing Oncohematological Treatment: A Pragmatic Trial. BMC Oral Health 2015, 15, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Gupta, S.; Pentapati, K.C.; Acharya, S. A Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Chemomechanical (Carie-CareTM) Versus Conventional Caries Removal for Atraumatic Restorative Treatment. Sci. World J. 2025, 2025, 6689053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Rayapudi, J.; Usha, C. Knowledge, Attitude and Skills of Dental Practitioners of Puducherry on Minimally Invasive Dentistry Concepts: A Questionnaire Survey. J. Conserv. Dent. 2018, 21, 257–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Prokshi, R.; Gjorgievska, E.; Prokshi, B.; Sopi, M.; Sejdiu, M. Survival Rate of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment Restorations in Primary Posterior Teeth in Children with High Risk of Caries in the Republic of Kosovo-1-Year Follow-Up. Eur. J. Dent. 2023, 17, 902–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Natarajan, D. Silver Modified Atraumatic Restorative Technique: A Way towards “SMART” Pediatric Dentistry during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Front. Dent. 2022, 19, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Narbutaite, J.; Santamaría, R.M.; Innes, N.; Splieth, C.H.; Maciulskiene, V. Comparison of Three Management Approaches for Dental Caries in Primary Molars: A Two-Year Randomized Clinical Trial. J. Dent. 2024, 150, 105390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Torlińska-Walkowiak, N.; Majewska, K.A.; Sowińska, A.; Kędzia, A.; Opydo-Szymaczek, J. Developmental Enamel Defects and Dental Anomalies of Number and Size in Children with Growth Hormone Deficiency. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 14707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Wong, M.L.; Awang, C.F.; Ng, L.K.; Norlian, D.; Burhanudin, R.D.; Gere, M.J. Role of Interceptive Orthodontics in Early Mixed Dentition. Singap. Dent. J. 2004, 26, 10–14. [Google Scholar]
  108. Tong, A.; Chow, Y.-L.; Xu, K.; Hardiman, R.; Schneider, P.; Tan, S.-S. Transcriptome Analysis of Ankylosed Primary Molars with Infraocclusion. Int. J. Oral Sci. 2020, 12, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Tunc, E.S.; Bayrak, S. Usage of White Mineral Trioxide Aggregate in a Non-Vital Primary Molar with No Permanent Successor. Aust. Dent. J. 2010, 55, 92–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Torlińska-Walkowiak, N.; Tuczyńska, M.; Kucharska, K.; Wyzga, S.; Singh, N.; Łukomska-Pochylska, M.; Fudalej, O.; Opydo-Szymaczek, J. Infraocclusion—An Anomaly in Primary Dentition. Pediatr. I Med. Rodzinna 2022, 18, 341–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Thumbigere-Math, V.; Alqadi, A.; Chalmers, N.I.; Chavez, M.B.; Chu, E.Y.; Collins, M.T.; Ferreira, C.R.; FitzGerald, K.; Gafni, R.I.; Gahl, W.A.; et al. Hypercementosis Associated with ENPP1 Mutations and GACI. J. Dent. Res. 2018, 97, 432–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Thilander, B.; Ödman, J.; Gröteborg, K.; Friberg, B. Osseointegrated Implants in Adolescents. An Alternative in Replacing Missing Teeth? Eur. J. Orthod. 1994, 16, 84–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Termine, N.; Panzarella, V.; Ciavarella, D.; Lo Muzio, L.; D’Angelo, M.; Sardella, A.; Compilato, D.; Campisi, G. Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Dentistry and Oral Surgery: Use and Misuse. Int. Dent. J. 2009, 59, 263–270. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  114. Tayab, T.; AlFardan, A.E.; Hasan, E.A.R. Management of Severe Infraocclusion of the Primary Second Molar Leading to Impaction of Second Premolar. J. Dent. Child. 2023, 90, 96–101. [Google Scholar]
  115. Souza-Silva, B.N.; Vieira, W.d.A.; Bernardino, Í.d.M.; Batista, M.J.; Bittencourt, M.A.V.; Paranhos, L.R. Non-Syndromic Tooth Agenesis Patterns and Their Association with Other Dental Anomalies: A Retrospective Study. Arch. Oral Biol. 2018, 96, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Sigler, L.M.; Baccetti, T.; McNamara, J.A. Effect of Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Transpalatal Arch Treatment Associated with Deciduous Canine Extraction on the Eruption of Palatally Displaced Canines: A 2-Center Prospective Study. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2011, 139, e235–e244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Sharif, M.O.; Parker, K.; Lyne, A.; Chia, M.S.Y. The Orthodontic-Oral Surgery Interface. Part Two: Diagnosis and Management of Anomalies in Eruption and Transpositions. Br. Dent. J. 2018, 225, 491–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Shalish, M.; Har-Zion, G.; Zini, A.; Harari, D.; Chaushu, S. Deep Submersion: Severe Phenotype of Deciduous-Molar Infraocclusion with Biological Associations. Angle Orthod. 2014, 84, 292–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Rossi, R.; Memè, L.; Strappa, E.M.; Bambini, F. Restoration of Severe Bone and Soft Tissue Atrophy by Means of a Xenogenic Bone Sheet (Flex Cortical Sheet): A Case Report. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Roslan, A.A.; Rahman, N.A.; Alam, M.K. Dental Anomalies and Their Treatment Modalities/Planning in Orthodontic Patients. J. Orthod. Sci. 2018, 7, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Rooney, C.; Suida, I.; Spencer, J. Infraoccluded Upper Deciduous Second Molars Leading to Caries in the Permanent Dentition. Dent. Update 2015, 42, 485–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Laforgia, A.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Piras, F.; Colonna, V.; Giorgio, R.V.; Carone, C.; Rapone, B.; Malcangi, G.; Inchingolo, A.M.; Inchingolo, F.; et al. Therapeutic Strategies and Genetic Implications for Periodontal Disease Management: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 7217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Adamska, P.; Sobczak-Zagalska, H.; Stasiak, M.; Adamski, Ł.J.; Pylińska-Dąbrowska, D.; Barkowska, S.; Zedler, A.; Studniarek, M. Infraocclusion in the Primary and Permanent Dentition—A Narrative Review. Medicina 2024, 60, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Al-Abdallah, M.; AlHadidi, A.; Hammad, M.; Al-Ahmad, H.; Saleh, R. Prevalence and Distribution of Dental Anomalies: A Comparison between Maxillary and Mandibular Tooth Agenesis. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2015, 148, 793–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Bauman, J.M.; Souza, J.G.S.; Bauman, C.D.; Flório, F.M. Epidemiological Pattern of Malocclusion in Brazilian Preschoolers. Ciência Saúde Coletiva 2018, 23, 3861–3868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Hvaring, C.L.; Øgaard, B.; Stenvik, A.; Birkeland, K. The Prognosis of Retained Primary Molars without Successors: Infraocclusion, Root Resorption and Restorations in 111 Patients. Eur. J. Orthod. 2014, 36, 26–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Hua, L.; Thomas, M.; Bhatia, S.; Bowkett, A.; Merrett, S. To Extract or Not to Extract? Management of Infraoccluded Second Primary Molars without Successors. Br. Dent. J. 2019, 227, 93–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Ristaniemi, J.; Kujasalo, K.; Rytkönen, E.; Melaluoto, E.; Iivari, J.; Pesonen, P.; Lähdesmäki, R. Features of Dental Anomaly Patterns in Finnish Children as Seen in Panoramic Radiographs at the Late Mixed Stage. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2023, 81, 609–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Ristaniemi, J.; Karjalainen, T.; Kujasalo, K.; Rajala, W.; Pesonen, P.; Lähdesmäki, R. Radiological Features and Treatment of Erupting Maxillary Canines in Relation to the Occurrence of Dental Developmental Abnormalities. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2024, 83, 197–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Pereira, P.M.; Ferreira, A.P.; Tavares, P.; Braga, A.C. Different Manifestations of Class II Division 2 Incisor Retroclination and Their Association with Dental Anomalies. J. Orthod. 2013, 40, 299–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Shalish, M.; Gal, A.; Brin, I.; Zini, A.; Ben-Bassat, Y. Prevalence of Dental Features That Indicate a Need for Early Orthodontic Treatment. Eur. J. Orthod. 2013, 35, 454–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Oh, N.-Y.; Nam, S.-H.; Lee, J.-S.; Kim, H.-J. Delayed Spontaneous Eruption of Severely Infraoccluded Primary Second Molar: Two Case Reports. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2020, 44, 185–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Odeh, R.; Mihailidis, S.; Townsend, G.; Lähdesmäki, R.; Hughes, T.; Brook, A. Prevalence of Infraocclusion of Primary Molars Determined Using a New 2D Image Analysis Methodology. Aust. Dent. J. 2016, 61, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Children 12 00511 g001
Figure 1. High-viscosity glass ionomer cement on 5.4.
Figure 1. High-viscosity glass ionomer cement on 5.4.
Children 12 00511 g001
Children 12 00511 g002
Figure 2. PRISMA flowchart.
Figure 2. PRISMA flowchart.
Children 12 00511 g002
Children 12 00511 g003
Figure 3. SMART 5.4 and 6.4.
Figure 3. SMART 5.4 and 6.4.
Children 12 00511 g003
Children 12 00511 g004
Figure 4. After 12 months, ART demonstrated a caries arrest rate of 87.2%, which was slightly higher than SDF (84.6%) and significantly better than UCT (61.6%).
Figure 4. After 12 months, ART demonstrated a caries arrest rate of 87.2%, which was slightly higher than SDF (84.6%) and significantly better than UCT (61.6%).
Children 12 00511 g004
Table 1. Indicators for database searches.
Table 1. Indicators for database searches.
Article screening strategyKeywords: “Dental Caries, Caries, Tooth Decay, Atraumatic Restorative Treatment, ART, Minimally Invasive Treatment, Child, Children, Pediatric dentistry”
Boolean Indicators: OR and AND
Timespan: 2nd January 2015 to 31st January 2025
Electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, WOS.
Table 2. Analysis of the studies included in the Discussion section from 2015 to 2024.
Table 2. Analysis of the studies included in the Discussion section from 2015 to 2024.
AuthorsType of StudyPatientsAim of the StudyMaterials
and Methods		Conclusions
Hesse et al., 2016 [64]RCT208 children (6–7 years)Compare GIC insertion techniques and surface protectionFour groups were studied, conventional or bilayer GIC with petroleum jelly or a nano-filled coating, with a follow-up period of 36 months.The bilayer technique and nano-filled coating helped the restorations last longer.
Hesse et al., 2016
[62]		RCT124 children (6–8 years)Compare ART and the HT for treating occluso-proximal cavities in primary molarsTwo groups were compared: ART with GIC and HT with metal crowns.ART is more effective and acceptable for managing occluso-proximal caries in primary molars, especially in low-resource settings, to support clinical and public health decision-making.
Abdul Khalek et al., 2017 [72]RCT50 children (4–8 years)Compare pain and discomfort during caries removal using Papacarie vs. ARTTwo groups were studied: (1) Papacarie gel for removing cavities and (2) ART with hand tools. Pain was measured using the SEM scale (Sound, Eye, and Motor scale).Papacarie caused less pain and discomfort than ART, but took a bit more time. It is a more comfortable option for young or anxious children.
de Medeiros Serpa et al., 2017 [55]Randomized, split-mouth, blind clinical trial86 children (4–8 years), 216 teethTo evaluate the clinical and radiographic success of ART using GIC and CR in primary molarsA total of 108 restorations with GIC (Ketac Molar Easy Mix) and 108 with CR (Filtek Z250) were studied.ART with both materials worked well. CR had better wear resistance, while GIC had a higher risk of secondary cavities. ART is a good option for children’s dental treatments.
Olegário et al., 2017 [73]RCT150 children (4–8 years)To evaluate the survival rate of occlusal ART restorations in primary molars using three different GICsThree groups were studied: GC Gold Label 9, Vitro Molar, and Maxxion R.Low-cost GICs (Vitro Molar and Maxxion R) lasted less than GC Gold Label 9, showing that they perform worse in the long term.
de França Lopes et al. (2018) [57]RCT33 children (6–10 years)Compare the survival rates of ART Class II restorations using glass carbomer and HV-GICA total of 59 restorations were placed by a pediatric dentist; two calibrated, blinded examiners assessed restorations at 6 and 12 months.HV-GIC had much higher success rates than glass carbomer, which showed more wear and edge problems. HV-GIC is a better choice for ART Class II restorations.
Arrow et al., 2020
[59]		RCT26 communities; preschool children (0–4 years)Evaluate an ART-based primary care model for managing early childhood caries in Aboriginal childrenThe study had two groups: immediate vs. delayed treatment. Participants were checked at the start and after 12 months, with support from Aboriginal research assistants.The ART approach reduced the need for specialist visits and general anesthesia, improved oral health, and saved costs.
Faustino-Silva et al., 2019 [63]Randomized, double-blind clinical trial25 children (18–36 months)Evaluate ART for ECC (Early Childhood Caries) over 4 years.A total of 25 children (18–36 months) with 100 decayed molars received ART with two types of cements.ART was effective, with similar performance for both GICs.
Olegário et al., 2019 [74]RCT568 children (4–7 years old)Compare ART with GIC, COM, and CARA total of 568 children (287 occluso-proximal, 281 occlusal cavities) were randomly assigned to GIC, COM, or CAR; follow-up was conducted at 2, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months.GIC and COM had better survival than CAR. CAR is not recommended for ART.
Meng Jiang et al., 2020 [60]RCT194 preschool children (3–4 years old)Test SDF’s effect on ART successCavitated caries lesions were treated with either 38% SDF or a placebo (tonic water), followed by ART restoration after 10 weeks. Success rates were evaluated over 24 months.SDF reduced the treatment time and improved the cooperation of young children.
Olegário et al., 2020 [75]RCT150 children (4–8 years)Evaluate the survival and cost-effectiveness of 3 GICs in ART restorationsFuji IX, Vitro Molar, Maxxion R were compared over 2 years for survival and costs.Fuji IX showed highest survival (72.7%) and cost-effectiveness over 2 years.
Mohammed et al., 2022 [76]RCT30 children (3–6 years)Compare SMART (Silver-Modified Atraumatic Restorative Treatment) and ART outcomesSplit-mouth design with GIC and SDF treatmentsSMART had higher success rates than ART.
de Souza et al., 2022 [44]RCT 20 children (3–9 years)Compare ART with/without Brix3000™ for time, pain, and acceptability
Test Brix3000™ in ART		Measured time, pain, and acceptability (hedonic scale) during caries removalBrix3000™ took more time but did not affect pain or acceptance.
Pássaro et al., 2022 [32]RCT182 children
(4–8 years)		Compare GIC vs. GCR (Giomer Composite Resin) in ARTGIC vs. GCR in molar restorations, 24-month follow-upGCR had more failures than GIC.
Aly et al., 2023
[56]		RCT67 children (5–9 years)Compare SMART vs. ARTSMART and ART, 12-month follow-up, cost and performance analysesBoth methods were effective, but SMART was quicker and cheaper.
Garbim et al., 2024
[77]		RCT152 children (4–8 years)Compare GIC survival with EF (EQUIA Fil) and RSC (Riva Self Cure)ART restorations with EF or RSC, evaluated over 24 monthsRSC matched EF’s success and was more cost-effective.
Pesaressi et al., 2024 [58]RCT187 children
(3–7 years)		Evaluate Class II ART restoration survival with/without grooves.293 restorations with GIC; survival was assessed at 6 and 12 monthsGrooves improved success, especially in high-caries cases.
Hamza et al., 2024
[61]		RCT135 children
(3–5 years)		Evaluate ART, SDF, and UCT (Ultraconservative Treatment) in arresting dentin cariesThree groups were compared; follow-ups were conducted at 3, 6, and 12 months; caries arrest, treatment time, and anxiety were measured.ART and SDF had the best success. SDF took less time and caused less anxiety.
Table 3. A tabular summary of the risk of bias assessment of 18 studies, evaluated across six domains.
Table 3. A tabular summary of the risk of bias assessment of 18 studies, evaluated across six domains.
Authors and YearD1D2D3D4D5D6Overall
Hesse et al., 2016
[64]		Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002
Hesse et al., 2016
[62]		Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002
Abdul Khalek et al., 2017 [72]Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002
de Medeiros Serpa et al., 2017 [55]Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002
Olegário et al., 2017 [73]Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002
de França Lopes et al., 2018 [57]Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002
Arrow et al., 2020
[59]		Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002
Faustino-Silva et al., 2019 [63]Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002
Olegário et al., 2019 [74]Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002
Meng Jiang et al., 2020 [60]Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002
Isabel Cristina Olegário et al., 2020 [75]Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002
Mohammed, S.M.E et al., 2022 [76]Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002
T. F. de Souza et al., 2022 [44]Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002
Pássaro et al., 2022 [32]Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001
Abla Ahmed Mohamed Aly et al., 2023 [56]Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001
Jonathan Rafael Garbim et al., 2024 [77]Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002
E. Pesaressi et al., 2024 [58]Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002
Basma Elsayed Hamza et al., 2024 [61]Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i001Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002Children 12 00511 i002
DomainsJudgement
D1: Bias due to confoundingVery HighChildren 12 00511 i003
D2: Bias arising from the measurement of the exposure.HighChildren 12 00511 i004
D3: Bias in the selection of participants in the study (or in the analysis).Some ConcernsChildren 12 00511 i001
D4: Bias due to post-exposure interventions.LowChildren 12 00511 i002
D5: Bias due to missing data.No InformationChildren 12 00511 i005
D6: Bias arising from the measurement of the outcome.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dipalma, G.; Inchingolo, A.M.; Casamassima, L.; Nardelli, P.; Ciccarese, D.; De Sena, P.; Inchingolo, F.; Palermo, A.; Severino, M.; Maspero, C.M.N.; et al. Effectiveness of Dental Restorative Materials in the Atraumatic Treatment of Carious Primary Teeth in Pediatric Dentistry: A Systematic Review. Children 2025, 12, 511. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12040511

AMA Style

Dipalma G, Inchingolo AM, Casamassima L, Nardelli P, Ciccarese D, De Sena P, Inchingolo F, Palermo A, Severino M, Maspero CMN, et al. Effectiveness of Dental Restorative Materials in the Atraumatic Treatment of Carious Primary Teeth in Pediatric Dentistry: A Systematic Review. Children. 2025; 12(4):511. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12040511

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dipalma, Gianna, Angelo Michele Inchingolo, Lucia Casamassima, Paola Nardelli, Danilo Ciccarese, Paolo De Sena, Francesco Inchingolo, Andrea Palermo, Marco Severino, Cinzia Maria Norma Maspero, and et al. 2025. "Effectiveness of Dental Restorative Materials in the Atraumatic Treatment of Carious Primary Teeth in Pediatric Dentistry: A Systematic Review" Children 12, no. 4: 511. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12040511

APA Style

Dipalma, G., Inchingolo, A. M., Casamassima, L., Nardelli, P., Ciccarese, D., De Sena, P., Inchingolo, F., Palermo, A., Severino, M., Maspero, C. M. N., & Inchingolo, A. D. (2025). Effectiveness of Dental Restorative Materials in the Atraumatic Treatment of Carious Primary Teeth in Pediatric Dentistry: A Systematic Review. Children, 12(4), 511. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12040511

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop