Acceptability of atraumatic restorative treatment and Hall Technique among children, parents, and general dental practitioners: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the acceptance level of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and Hall Technique (HT) among children, parents, and general dental practitioners. METHOD AND MATERIALS: The study was registered in the PROSPERO database. Articles published between January 1960 and January 2021 were searched in 11 online databases and six textbooks according to PRISMA guidelines. Fifteen studies were chosen for qualitative and quantitative analyses. Among them, five studies focused on ART, seven studies on HT, and the remaining three studies compared both ART and HT. The children, parents, and general dental practitioners' acceptance were estimated using the DerSimonian-Laird random--effects method based on both single-arm and two-arm approaches. The risks of bias were evaluated using Cochrane RoB 2, ROBINS-1, NOS, and JBI assessment tools, while evidence levels were determined using OCEBM. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were conducted to assess the effect of different evaluation methods on the acceptance rates of ART and HT among children and parents. RESULTS: The acceptance rates of ART among children, parents and general dental practitioners were 90.1%, 95.7%, and 67.7%, respectively, whilst the acceptance rates of HT were 88.3%, 85.7%, and 81.8%, respectively. Two-arm meta-analysis revealed no significant difference (P > .05) between the acceptance of HT and ART among children and parents, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that using questionnaire-based evaluation had a higher (P < .05) acceptance value than using face scale-based evaluation. CONCLUSION: Both ART and HT are considered well--accepted among children, parents, and general dental practitioners, although general dental practitioners showed a slightly lower level of acceptance. A standardized evaluation tool for assessing acceptance level should be established for better comparison among published articles. Future well-designed studies are warranted to verify the validity of the present review.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.