This protocol has been registered with the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on the 05 January 2012 under registration number CRD42012001887 (Available online from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/full_doc.asp?ID=CRD42012001887). This protocol comprises an update of an existing systematic review report by the authors as part of the SYSTEM initiative: Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V, Banerjee A. Atraumatic restorative treatment versus amalgam restoration longevity: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig 2010; 14: 233-40. The protocol of this original review was not registered. This update will differ from the original review by changing and adding the following: PICO question: while the original review focused on the comparative success rate, this update will focus on the comparative failure rate between ART and amalgam restorations; Systematic literature search: extended to the databases for open access journals (OpenJ-Gate); regional databases (LILACS, BBO, IndMed, SABINET, Scielo); grey literature sources (Scirus/Medicine, OpenSIGLE, GoogleScholar); hand-searching of additional journals that were identified as not been indexed in above databases; searching of reference lists of included articles; Search term development: a detailed search strategy will be added; the search cut-off date will be extended beyond the date of the original systematic review; Article inclusion criteria: while the original review focused on articles published in English, only, this update will have no restriction on the publication language type; Article exclusion criteria: while the original review used lack of randomisation/quasi-randomisation as criteria for exclusion, this update will include all clinical controlled trials for data extraction; Data extraction: The information extracted from trials will be more extensive in terms of general trial information, intervention integrity, methodological quality and bias risk; Data analysis and reporting: in addition to a computed relative point estimate (RR = Risk ratio), the results will also be converted into an absolute outcome measure (RD = Risk difference), as well as an illustrative comparative risk for both, test- and control intervention, and reported accordingly; a summary of findings table will be added; statistical heterogeneity will be investigated using regression analysis; sensitivity analysis will be added in order to establish whether all findings are robust to the type of data analysis used; The original quality assessment of studies, including its criteria, will be replaced by a more stricter assessment of selection-, detection-, performance-, attrition bias risk; the assessment of publication- and reporting bias risk in the accepted trials will be added; Research gaps within accepted trials in terms of imprecision, inconsistency, lack of right information and shortcomings in bias risk control will be identified using a designated worksheet and subsequently more detailed recommendations for further research will be added to the this systematic review update.
Steffen, M (2019). Failure rate of atraumatic restorative treatment using highviscosity glass-ionomer cement compared to conventional amalgam restorative treatment in primary and permanent teeth. Afribary.com: Retrieved March 04, 2021, from https://afribary.com/works/failure-rate-of-atraumatic-restorative-treatment-using-highviscosity-glass-ionomer-cement-compared-to-conventional-amalgam-restorative-treatment-in-primary-and-permanent-teeth-a-systematic-re
Mickenautsch, Steffen. "Failure rate of atraumatic restorative treatment using highviscosity glass-ionomer cement compared to conventional amalgam restorative treatment in primary and permanent teeth" Afribary.com. Afribary.com, 26 May. 2019, https://afribary.com/works/failure-rate-of-atraumatic-restorative-treatment-using-highviscosity-glass-ionomer-cement-compared-to-conventional-amalgam-restorative-treatment-in-primary-and-permanent-teeth-a-systematic-re . Accessed 04 Mar. 2021.
Mickenautsch, Steffen. "Failure rate of atraumatic restorative treatment using highviscosity glass-ionomer cement compared to conventional amalgam restorative treatment in primary and permanent teeth". Afribary.com, Afribary.com, 26 May. 2019. Web. 04 Mar. 2021. < https://afribary.com/works/failure-rate-of-atraumatic-restorative-treatment-using-highviscosity-glass-ionomer-cement-compared-to-conventional-amalgam-restorative-treatment-in-primary-and-permanent-teeth-a-systematic-re >.
Mickenautsch, Steffen. "Failure rate of atraumatic restorative treatment using highviscosity glass-ionomer cement compared to conventional amalgam restorative treatment in primary and permanent teeth" Afribary.com (2019). Accessed March 04, 2021. https://afribary.com/works/failure-rate-of-atraumatic-restorative-treatment-using-highviscosity-glass-ionomer-cement-compared-to-conventional-amalgam-restorative-treatment-in-primary-and-permanent-teeth-a-systematic-re