Evidence-based clinical practice guideline on restorative treatments for caries lesions: A report from the American Dental Association.

[1]  K. O’Brien,et al.  Direct materials for restoring caries lesions: Systematic review and meta-analysis-a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. , 2023, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[2]  S. Albadri,et al.  Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review , 2021, European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry.

[3]  H. Worthington,et al.  Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth. , 2021, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[4]  V. Campanella,et al.  Is Dental Amalgam a Higher Risk Factor rather than Resin-Based Restorations for Systemic Conditions? A Systematic Review , 2021, Materials.

[5]  R. Mustafa,et al.  ASH ISTH NHF WFH 2021 guidelines on the management of von Willebrand disease. , 2021, Blood advances.

[6]  Romina Brignardello-Petersen,et al.  Using GRADE Evidence to Decision Frameworks to Choose from Multiple Interventions. , 2020, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[7]  E. Mayo-Wilson,et al.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews , 2020, BMJ.

[8]  A. Kiremitçi,et al.  Clinical comparison of a micro-hybride resin-based composite and resin modified glass ionomer in the treatment of cervical caries lesions: 36-month, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial , 2020, Odontology.

[9]  F. Schwendicke,et al.  Selective vs stepwise removal of deep carious lesions in primary molars: 24 months follow-up from a randomized controlled trial , 2020, Clinical oral investigations.

[10]  A. Zandoná,et al.  How to Intervene in the Caries Process: Dentin Caries in Primary Teeth , 2020, Caries Research.

[11]  G. Spagnuolo,et al.  Clinical Effects of Mercury in Conservative Dentistry: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials , 2020, International journal of dentistry.

[12]  W. Thomson,et al.  A Primary Care Randomized Controlled Trial of Hall and Conventional Restorative Techniques , 2020, JDR clinical and translational research.

[13]  F. Mendes,et al.  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 , 2020, BMC Oral Health.

[14]  G. Tosun,et al.  Clinical evaluation of bulk-fill resins and glass ionomer restorative materials: A 1-year follow-up randomized clinical trial in children , 2020, Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice.

[15]  E. Ergin,et al.  A randomized controlled 10 years follow up of a glass ionomer restorative material in class I and class II cavities. , 2020, Journal of dentistry.

[16]  A. El-Housseiny,et al.  Hall Technique for Carious Primary Molars: A Review of the Literature , 2020, Dentistry journal.

[17]  H. Balkaya,et al.  A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results , 2019, Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB.

[18]  F. Schwendicke,et al.  Selective versus stepwise removal of deep carious lesions in permanent teeth: a randomised controlled trial from Egypt—an interim analysis , 2019, BMJ Open.

[19]  Djessica Pedrotti,et al.  Does selective carious tissue removal of soft dentin increase the restorative failure risk in primary teeth?: Systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2019, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[20]  A. Kupietzky,et al.  Long-term clinical performance of heat-cured high-viscosity glass ionomer class II restorations versus resin-based composites in primary molars: a randomized comparison trial , 2019, European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry.

[21]  M. Fontana,et al.  Caries management for the modern age: Improving practice one guideline at a time. , 2018, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[22]  S. Papageorgiou,et al.  Comparison of resin modified glass ionomer cement and composite resin in class II primary molar restorations: a 2-year parallel randomised clinical trial , 2018, European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry.

[23]  F. Mendes,et al.  Glass carbomer and compomer for ART restorations: 3-year results of a randomized clinical trial , 2018, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[24]  S. Tewari,et al.  Outcomes of Partial and Complete Caries Excavation in Permanent Teeth: A 18 Month Clinical Study , 2018, Contemporary clinical dentistry.

[25]  F. Schwendicke,et al.  Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions , 2018, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

[26]  D. Rios,et al.  Evaluation of Dentin-Pulp Complex Response after Conservative Clinical Procedures in Primary Teeth , 2018, International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry.

[27]  A. Carrasco-Labra,et al.  Benefits and harms associated with analgesic medications used in the management of acute dental pain: An overview of systematic reviews. , 2018, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[28]  M. Maltz,et al.  Partial caries removal in deep caries lesions: a 5-year multicenter randomized controlled trial , 2018, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[29]  S. Bhandi,et al.  Clinical Evaluation of Microhybrid Composite and Glass lonomer Restorative Material in Permanent Teeth. , 2018, The journal of contemporary dental practice.

[30]  J. Schmoeckel,et al.  Alternative Caries Management Options for Primary Molars: 2.5-Year Outcomes of a Randomised Clinical Trial , 2017, Caries Research.

[31]  P. Tugwell,et al.  AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both , 2017, British Medical Journal.

[32]  F. Schwendicke,et al.  Contemporary operative caries management: consensus recommendations on minimally invasive caries removal , 2017, BDJ.

[33]  L. Bjørndal,et al.  Randomized Clinical Trials on Deep Carious Lesions: 5-Year Follow-up , 2017, Journal of dental research.

[34]  R. Hoseinifar,et al.  One Year Clinical Evaluation of a Low Shrinkage Composite Compared with a Packable Composite Resin: A Randomized Clinical Trial , 2017, Journal of dentistry.

[35]  K. Kerkvliet,et al.  The AGREE Reporting Checklist: a tool to improve reporting of clinical practice guidelines , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[36]  F. Schwendicke,et al.  Managing Carious Lesions: Consensus Recommendations on Terminology , 2016, Advances in dental research.

[37]  F Schwendicke,et al.  Managing Carious Lesions , 2016, Advances in dental research.

[38]  G. McKenna,et al.  Evaluation of Biodentine in the Restoration of Root Caries , 2016, JDR clinical and translational research.

[39]  F. Schwendicke,et al.  Patients' preferences for selective versus complete excavation: A mixed-methods study. , 2016, Journal of dentistry.

[40]  H. Tezel,et al.  A 3-year randomized clinical trial evaluating two different bonded posterior restorations: Amalgam versus resin composite , 2016, European journal of dentistry.

[41]  A. Mufti.  Clinical efficacy of the conventional glass ionomer cement and resin modified glass ionomer cement in primary molars. , 2014, Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad : JAMC.

[42]  R. Franzon,et al.  Outcomes of One-Step Incomplete and Complete Excavation in Primary Teeth: A 24-Month Randomized Controlled Trial , 2014, Caries Research.

[43]  Romina Brignardello-Petersen,et al.  Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise , 2014, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[44]  F. Schwendicke,et al.  Attitudes and Behaviour regarding Deep Dentin Caries Removal: A Survey among German Dentists , 2013, Caries Research.

[45]  Elie A Akl,et al.  GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. , 2013, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[46]  David Rind,et al.  GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength. , 2013, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[47]  D. Manton,et al.  Minimal intervention dentistry for managing dental caries - a review: report of a FDI task group. , 2012, International dental journal.

[48]  P. Petersen,et al.  Clinical evaluation of three caries removal approaches in primary teeth: a randomised controlled trial. , 2012, Community dental health.

[49]  N. Innes,et al.  Sealing Caries in Primary Molars , 2011, Journal of dental research.

[50]  Howard Balshem,et al.  GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[51]  R. Moor,et al.  Two-year clinical performance of glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in xerostomic head- and neck-irradiated cancer patients , 2011, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[52]  M. Sadeghi,et al.  Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composites in Class I restorations. , 2010, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[53]  M. Daou,et al.  Two-year clinical evaluation of three restorative materials in primary molars. , 2009, The Journal of clinical pediatric dentistry.

[54]  P. Lambrechts,et al.  Three-year randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance, quantitative and qualitative wear patterns of hybrid composite restorations , 2009, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[55]  E. Ercan,et al.  A FIELD-TRIAL OF TWO RESTORATIVE MATERIALS USED WITH ATRAUMATIC RESTORATIVE TREATMENT IN RURAL TURKEY: 24-MONTH RESULTS , 2009, Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB.

[56]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  GrADe : what is “ quality of evidence ” and why is it important to clinicians ? rATING quALITY of evIDeNCe AND STreNGTH of reCommeNDATIoNS , 2022 .

[57]  F. Trachtenberg,et al.  The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings From the New England Children's Amalgam Trial. , 2007, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[58]  B. Leroux,et al.  Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. , 2007, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[59]  P. Caufield,et al.  Attitudes and expectations of treating deep caries: a PEARL Network survey. , 2007, General dentistry.

[60]  A. Reis,et al.  A 12-month clinical evaluation of composite resins in class III restorations. , 2007, The journal of adhesive dentistry.

[61]  N. Ersin,et al.  A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach: results at 24 months. , 2006, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[62]  Alessandra Reis,et al.  Clinical evaluation of a nanofilled composite in posterior teeth: 12-month results. , 2006, Operative dentistry.

[63]  A. Loguércio,et al.  3-Year clinical evaluation of posterior packable composite resin restorations. , 2006, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[64]  John Cairns,et al.  Preferences over dental restorative materials among young patients and dental professionals. , 2006, European journal of oral sciences.

[65]  K. Sunnegårdh-Grönberg,et al.  Flowable resin composite as a class II restorative in primary molars: A two-year clinical evaluation , 2006, Acta odontologica Scandinavica.

[66]  I. Mejàre,et al.  Conventional versus resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars. A 3-year clinical study. , 2003, International journal of paediatric dentistry.

[67]  R. Crisp,et al.  A practice-based, randomized, controlled clinical trial of a new resin composite restorative: one-year results. , 2002, Operative dentistry.

[68]  D. McComb,et al.  A clinical comparison of glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in the treatment of cervical caries in xerostomic head and neck radiation patients. , 2002, Operative dentistry.

[69]  A. Fuks,et al.  Clinical and radiographic assessment of Class II esthetic restorations in primary molars. , 2000, Pediatric dentistry.

[70]  J. Perdigão,et al.  A clinical, radiographic, and scanning electron microscopic evaluation of adhesive restorations on carious dentin in primary teeth. , 1999, Quintessence international.

[71]  R. Bryant,et al.  A clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin restorations: 8-year findings. , 1998, Journal of dentistry.

[72]  I. Mejàre,et al.  Pulp exposure after stepwise versus direct complete excavation of deep carious lesions in young posterior permanent teeth. , 1996, Endodontics & dental traumatology.

[73]  R. Bryant,et al.  A clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin restorations. , 1994, Australian dental journal.

[74]  J. Frencken,et al.  Randomized Controlled Trial of Class II ART High-viscosity Glass-ionomer Cement and Conventional Resin-composite restorations in Permanent Dentition: Two-year Survival. , 2020, Journal of Adhesive Dentistry.

[75]  L. Fernandes,et al.  A 14-year Follow-up of Resin Composite Occlusal Restorations: Split Mouth Randomised Clinical Trial and Wear Evaluation by Optical Coherence Tomography , 2019, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH.

[76]  A. El-Housseiny,et al.  A randomized controlled clinical trial of glass carbomer restorations in Class II cavities in primary molars: 12-month results. , 2019, Quintessence International.

[77]  L. Bjørndal.  Stepwise Excavation. , 2018, Monographs in oral science.

[78]  D. Atabek,et al.  Two-year clinical performance of sonic-resin placement system in posterior restorations. , 2017, Quintessence international.

[79]  M. Nascimento,et al.  Exploring How U.S. Dental Schools Teach Removal of Carious Tissues During Cavity Preparations. , 2017, Journal of dental education.

[80]  H. Schünemann,et al.  [GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction.] , 2017, Recenti progressi in medicina.

[81]  T. Sastraruji,et al.  Three Incomplete Caries Removal Techniques Compared Over Two Years in Primary Molars with Asymptomatic Deep Caries or Reversible Pulpitis. , 2015, Pediatric Dentistry.

[82]  C. Splieth,et al.  Acceptability of different caries management methods for primary molars in a RCT. , 2015, International journal of paediatric dentistry.

[83]  K. Orhan,et al.  Pulp exposure occurrence and outcomes after 1- or 2-visit indirect pulp therapy vs complete caries removal in primary and permanent molars. , 2010, Pediatric dentistry.

[84]  Yanfang Ren,et al.  Evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin composites in Class I restorations: three-year results of a randomized, double-blind and controlled clinical trial. , 2010, Operative dentistry.

[85]  J. Radford.  Microbiological analysis after complete or partial removal of carious dentin in primary teeth: a randomized clinical trial , 2009, BDJ.

[86]  N. Innes,et al.  The Hall Technique; a randomized controlled clinical trial of a novel method of managing carious primary molars in general dental practice: acceptability of the technique and outcomes at 23 months , 2008 .