Conclusions ART single-surface restorations  presented high survival percentages in both primary and permanent posterior teeth , whilst ART multiple-surface restorations presented lower survival percentages .
ART sealants presented a high-caries-preventive effect .
Clinical relevance ART is an effective evidence -based option for treating and preventing carious lesions in primary and permanent posterior teeth
Objective The aim of the present study is to up date the results of two previous meta-analyses , published in 2006 and 2012 , on the survival percentages of  atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) restorations and ART sealants .
The current meta- analysis includes Chinese publications not investigated before .
Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars: one-year results.
OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to compare the success rates of  glass-ionomer cement restorations placed with the atraumatic restorative treatment approach and conventional cavity preparation methods . METHOD AND MATERIAL S Two encapsulated , high-strength , esthetic conventional glass-ionomer cements were placed in 82 Class I and 53 Class II atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations  , and an encapsulated amalgam alloy was placed in 32 Class I conventional preparations , in vital primary molars of 60 Chinese children aged 7 to 9 years . RESULTS The atraumatic restorative treatment preparations , made with h and instruments only , took approximately 50 % longer to complete than did the preparations completed with conventional rotary instrumentation . After 1 year , there were no amalgam failures . For the glass-ionomer cement restorations , when the atraumatic restorative treatment method was used , significantly better survival rates were found for Class I ( 92.9 % ) than for Class II ( 64.7 % ) cavity preparations . There was also a strong trend for relatively better survival rates for the conventional cavity preparation method ( 86.7 % ) than for the atraumatic restorative treatment ( 64.7 % ) method for Class II cavity preparations . However , both the atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional methods appeared equally effective for Class I preparations . CONCLUSION In a clinic setting , the use of atraumatic restorative treatment h and instruments for cavity preparation is more time consuming , and the method may also provide less mechanical retention and /or bulk of glass-ionomer cement for some Class II preparations in primary molars than does the use of conventional rotary instruments
Conclusions ART single-surface restorations  presented high survival percentages in both primary and permanent posterior teeth , whilst ART multiple-surface restorations presented lower survival percentages .
ART sealants presented a high-caries-preventive effect .
Clinical relevance ART is an effective evidence -based option for treating and preventing carious lesions in primary and permanent posterior teeth
Objective The aim of the present study is to up date the results of two previous meta-analyses , published in 2006 and 2012 , on the survival percentages of  atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) restorations and ART sealants .
The current meta- analysis includes Chinese publications not investigated before .