J. Ostlund, K. Moller, and G. Koch, Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in class II restorations in primary molar. A three year clinical evaluation, Swed Dent J, vol.16, pp.81-86, 1992.

. Essai-clinique-randomisé, A) de 3 ans : restaurations de classe II amalgame, composite et CVI (Chelfil) Taux d'échecs annuels amalgames, 3%) / CVI (20%)

V. Qvist, L. Laurberg, A. Poulsen, and P. Teglers, Longevity and Cariostatic Effects of Everyday Conventional Glass-ionomer and Amalgam Restorations in Primary Teeth: Three-year Results, Journal of Dental Research, vol.76, issue.7, pp.1387-1396, 1997.
DOI : 10.1177/00220345970760070901

A. Olmez, S. Cula, and T. Ulusu, Clinical evaluation and marginal leakage of Amalgambond Plus: Three-years results

K. Donly, A. Segura, M. Kanellis, and R. Erikson, CLINICAL PERFORMANCE AND CARIES INHIBITION OF RESIN-MODIFIED GLASS IONOMER CEMENT AND AMALGAM RESTORATIONS, The Journal of the American Dental Association, vol.130, issue.10, pp.1459-1466, 1999.
DOI : 10.14219/jada.archive.1999.0056

. Essai-en-bouche-fractionnée, A) de 3 ans : restaurations de classe II (40) Taux d'échecs annuels des amalgames, 8%) versus CVIMAR Vitremer, p.9

L. Marks, K. Weerhejim, W. Van-amerongen, H. Groen, and L. Martens, Dyract versus Tytin Class II Restorations in Primary Molars: 36 Months Evaluation, Caries Research, vol.33, issue.5, pp.387-392, 1999.
DOI : 10.1159/000016538

. Essai-en-bouche-fractionnée, B1) de 3 ans : restaurations de classe II (30) Taux d'échecs annuels des amalgames, 9%) versus compomères Dyract (2%)

E. Mass, M. Gordon, and A. Fuks, Assessment of compomer proximal restorations in primary molars: a retrospective study in children, ASDC J Dent Child, vol.66, pp.93-97, 1999.

M. Duggal, K. Toumba, and N. Sharma, Clinical performance of a compomer and amalgam for the interproximal restoration of primary molars: a 24-month evaluation, British Dental Journal, vol.128, issue.6, pp.339-342, 2002.
DOI : 10.1038/sj.bdj.4801560

. Les, année de publication ; pour les classes I, ils variaient de 13, ) et pour les classes II, de 13,4 à 7,6%. Ils dépendaient également de l'âge de l'enfant (par ex moins de 2 ans chez enfants de moins de 4 ans, 1971.

A. De-niveau-de-preuve, mais deux d'entre elles intéressaient les classes III Toutes études confondues, les taux d'échecs variaient de 0 à 17% pour les classe I et de 0,8 à 25,8% pour les classe II ; et en ne considérant que les études contrôlées randomisées ou non

R. Welbury, A. Walls, J. Murray, and J. Mccabe, The 5-year results of a clinical trial comparing a glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement restoration with an amalgam restoration, British Dental Journal, vol.170, issue.5, pp.177-181, 1991.
DOI : 10.1038/sj.bdj.4807465

L. Hasselrot, Tunnel restorations. A 3 ½ -year follow up study of class I and II tunnel restorations in permanent and primary teeth, Swed Dent J, vol.17, pp.173-182, 1993.

N. Kilpatrick, J. Murray, and J. Mccabe, The use of a reinforced glass-ionomer cermet for the restoration of primary molars: a clinical trial, British Dental Journal, vol.179, issue.5, pp.175-179, 1995.
DOI : 10.1038/sj.bdj.4808867

. Essai-en-bouche-fractionnée, A) de 2,5 ans : restaurations de classe II. Taux d'échecs annuels, Cermet Ketac Silver CVI Ketac Fil, vol.16, issue.9, p.2

U. Folkesson, I. Andersson-wenckert, and J. Van-dijken, Resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary molars, Swed Dent J, vol.23, pp.1-9, 1999.

I. Espelid, A. Tveit, K. Tornes, and H. Alvheim, clinical behavior of glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth, JDent, vol.27, pp.437-442, 1999.

. Essai-en-bouche-fractionnée, A) de 2,5 ans : restaurations de classe II, Taux d'échecs annuels CVIMAR Vitremer (0,8%) versus cermet Ketac silver, p.6

R. Welbury, A. Shaw, J. Murray, P. Gordon, and J. Mccabe, Clinical evaluation of paired compomer and glass ionomer restorations in primay molars: Final results after 42 months, Br Dent J, vol.189, pp.93-97, 2000.

. Essai-en-bouche-fractionnée, A) de 3,5 ans : restaurations de classes I et II. Taux d'échecs annuels CVI Chemfil supérieur, 4%) versus compomères Dyract, p.6

N. Kramer and R. Frankenberger, Clinical performance of a condensable metal-reinforced glass ionomer cement in primary molars, British Dental Journal, vol.190, issue.6, pp.317-321, 2001.
DOI : 10.1038/sj.bdj.4800960a

J. Rutar, L. Mcallan, and M. Tyas, Three-year clinical performance of glass ionomer cement in primary molars, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.12, issue.2, pp.146-147, 2002.
DOI : 10.1046/j.1365-263X.2002.00339.x

S. Hubel and I. Mejare, Conventional versus resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars. A 3-year clinical study, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.23, issue.1, pp.2-8, 2003.
DOI : 10.1046/j.1365-263X.2003.00416.x

M. Varpio, Proximoclusal composite restorations in primary molars: A six year follow up ASDC, J Dent Child, vol.52, pp.435-440, 1985.

T. Oldenburg, W. Vann, . Jr, and D. Dilley, Comparison of composite and amalgam in posterior teeth of children, Dental Materials, vol.3, issue.4, pp.182-186, 1987.
DOI : 10.1016/S0109-5641(87)80031-3

T. Oldenburg, W. Vann, J. Dilley, and D. , Composite restorations for primary molars: Results after four years, Pediatr Dent, vol.9, pp.136-143, 1987.

. Essai-clinique-randomisé, A) de 4 ans : 152 restaurations de classes I et II avec un taux d'échec de 0,6% à 2 ans et 357 restaurations de classe I et II

E. Tonn and G. Ryge, Clinical evaluations of composite resin restorations in primary molars: a 4-year follow-up study, The Journal of the American Dental Association, vol.117, issue.5, pp.603-606, 1988.
DOI : 10.14219/jada.archive.1988.0057

W. Motokawa, R. Braham, and B. Teshima, Clinical evaluation of light-cured composite resin inlays in primary molars

A. Olmez, S. Cula, and T. Ulusu, Clinical evaluation and marginal leakage of Amalgambond Plus : Three-years results

M. Kimura, I. Nishida, K. Maki, A. Morimoto, T. Nishioka et al., A clinical study restoration of the primary teeth by light cured composite resin and bonding system : 3 year follow-up study, Pediatr Dent, vol.21, pp.258-264, 1999.

R. Cunha, A thirty months clinical evaluation of a posterior composite resin inprimary molars, J Clin Pediatr Dent, vol.24, pp.113-155, 2000.

T. Attin, A. Opatowski, C. Meyer, B. Zing-meyer, W. Buchalla et al., Three-year follow up assessment of class II restorations in primary molarswith a polyacid-modified composite resin and a hybrid composite, Am J Dent, vol.14, pp.148-152, 2001.

I. Andersson-wenckert, U. Folkesson, and J. Van-dijken, Durability of a Polyacid-Modified Composite Resin (Compomer) in Primary Molars: A Multicenter Study, Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, vol.74, issue.4, pp.255-260, 1997.
DOI : 10.3109/00016359709115424

J. Roeters, F. Frankenmolen, R. Burgersdijk, and T. Peters, Clinical evaluation of Dyract in primary molars: 3-year results, Am J Dent, vol.11, pp.143-148, 1998.

I. Krejci, C. Wiedmer, and F. Lutz, Clinical, radiographic and SEM evaluation of compomer restorations in deciduous teeth after 2 years, Acta Med Dent Helv, vol.3, pp.48-53, 1998.

L. Papagiannoulis, A. Kakaboura, F. Pantaleon, and K. Kavvadia, Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) in Class II restorations of primary teeth: A two-year follow up study, Pediatr Dent, vol.21, pp.231-234, 1999.

L. Gross, A. Griffen, and P. Casamassimo, Compomers as Class II restorations in primary molars, Pediatr Dent, vol.23, pp.24-27, 2001.

E. Mass, M. Gordon, and A. Fuks, Assessment of compomer proximal restorations in primary molars: retrospective study in children, J Dent Child, vol.66, pp.93-97, 1999.

L. Marks, K. Weerheijm, and W. Van-amerongen, Dyract versus Tytin Class II Restorations in Primary Molars: 36 Months Evaluation, Caries Research, vol.33, issue.5, pp.387-392, 1999.
DOI : 10.1159/000016538

M. Duggal, K. Toumba, and N. Sharma, Clinical performance of a compomer and amalgam for the interproximal restoration of primary molars: a 24-month evaluation, British Dental Journal, vol.128, issue.6, pp.339-342, 2002.
DOI : 10.1038/sj.bdj.4801560

K. Kavvadia, A. Kakaboura, A. Vanderas, and L. Papagiannoulis, Clinical evaluation of a compomer and an amalgam primary teeth class II restorations: a 2-year comparative study, Pediatr Dent, vol.26, pp.245-250, 2004.

L. Marks, W. Van-amerongen, P. Borgmeijer, H. Groen, and L. Martens, Ketac Molar versus Dyract Class II restorations in primary molars: twelve month clinical results, J Dent Child, vol.67, pp.37-39, 2000.

A. Louw, I. Sarvan, U. Chikte, and E. Honkala, One-year evaluation of atraumatic restorative treatment and minimum intervention techniques on primary teeth, J Dent Assoc S Afri, vol.57, pp.366-371, 2002.

R. Welbury, A. Shaw, J. Murray, P. Gordon, and J. Mccabe, Clinical evaluation of paired compomer and glass ionomer restorations in primary molars: final results after 42 months, Br Dent J, vol.189, pp.93-97, 2000.

V. Qvist, L. Laurberg, A. Poulsen, and P. Teglers, Class II restorations in primary teeth: 7-year study on three resin-modified glass ionomer cements and a compomer, European Journal of Oral Sciences, vol.71, issue.2, pp.188-196, 2004.
DOI : 10.1016/S0300-5712(99)00061-5

T. Attin, A. Opatowski, C. Meyer, B. Zingg-meyer, W. Buchalla et al., Three-year follow up assessment of Class II restorations in primary molars with a polyacid-modified composite resin and a hybrid composite, Am J Dent, vol.14, pp.48-152, 2001.

K. Hse and S. Wei, CLINICAL EVALUATION OF COMPOMER IN PRIMARY TEETH: 1-YEAR RESULTS, The Journal of the American Dental Association, vol.128, issue.8, pp.1088-1096, 1997.
DOI : 10.14219/jada.archive.1997.0366

. La-rédaction-de-l, article ressemble davantage à une RNL à partir d'une recherche dite exhaustive des articles sur le sujet. Les auteurs indiquaient que les compomères pouvaient se substituer aux amalgames, sous réserve d'une bonne coopération de l'enfant

J. Rutar, L. Mcallan, and M. Tyas, Clinical evaluation of a glass ionomer cement in primary molars, Pediatr Dent, vol.22, pp.486-488, 2000.

J. Rutar, L. Mcallan, and M. Tyas, Three-year clinical performance of glass ionomer cement in primary molars, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.12, issue.2, pp.146-147, 2002.
DOI : 10.1046/j.1365-263X.2002.00339.x

C. Etude-prospective-de, L. Laurberg, A. Poulsen, and P. Teglers, Fuji IX GP) suivis 24 et 36 mois avec un taux d'échec des classes II de 6,6% à 24 et 36 mois, mais beaucoup de perdus de vue Class II restorations in primary teeth: 7-year study on three resinmodified glass ionomer cements and a compomer, Eur J Oral Sci, vol.112, pp.188-196, 2004.

R. Welbury, A. Shaw, J. Murray, P. Gordon, and J. Mccabe, Clinical evaluation of paired compomer and glass ionomer restorations in primary molars: final results after 42 months, Brit Dent J, vol.189, pp.93-97, 2000.

A. Tveit, K. Tornes, and H. Alvheim, Essai clinique en bouche fractionnée intéressant les restaurations de classe I suivies jusqu'à 42 mois ; comparant 3 CVIMAR (Chemfil Fil) et un compomère (Dyract) Durée de survie des CVI (37 mois), significativement inférieure à celle des compomères (42 mois). Grade B2. CVIMAR / cermets Espelid I Clinical behaviour of glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth, J Dent, vol.27, pp.437-442, 1999.

K. Donly, A. Segura, M. Kanellis, and R. Erickson, CLINICAL PERFORMANCE AND CARIES INHIBITION OF RESIN-MODIFIED GLASS IONOMER CEMENT AND AMALGAM RESTORATIONS, Essai clinique en bouche fractionnée comparant CVIMAR (Vitremer) et cermet, pp.1459-1466, 1999.
DOI : 10.14219/jada.archive.1999.0056

D. Roshan, M. Curzon, and C. Fairpo, Changes in dentists' attitudes and practice in paediatric dentistry, Europ J Paediatr Dent, vol.4, pp.21-28, 2003.

K. Milsom, M. Tickle, and A. Blinkhorn, The prescription and relative outcomes of different materials used in general dental practice in the north west region of England to restore the primary dentition, Journal of Dentistry, vol.30, issue.2-3, pp.77-82, 2002.
DOI : 10.1016/S0300-5712(01)00061-6

M. Gordon, C. Gorfil, S. Segal, and E. Mass, Treatment policies among Israeli specialists in paediatric dentistry, European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.6, pp.73-81, 2005.

C. Chu, N. King, A. Lee, and C. Yiu, A pilot study of the marginal adaptation and surface morphology of glass -cermet cements, Quintessence Int, vol.27, pp.493-501, 1996.

M. Morris, P. Barkin, and K. Soelberg, Complex primary molar restorations using a composite resins. (A 42-month study using amalgam as comparative material), J Calif Dent Assoc, vol.7, pp.39-42, 1979.

G. Nelson, J. Osborne, E. Gale, R. Norman, and R. Phillips, A three-year clinical evaluation of composite resin and a high copper amalgam in posterior primary teeth, J Dent Child, vol.47, pp.414-422, 1980.

L. Petersson, C. Rasmusson, S. Hagborg, and P. Isacsson, Fluoride supplemented and non gamma 2 amalgam. A comparative clinical study into the primary and permanent dentition in children, Swed Dent J, vol.9, pp.49-53, 1985.

M. Roberts, C. Broring, and J. Moffa, Two-year clinical evaluation of a proprietary composite resin for the restoration of primary posterior teeth, Pediatr Dent, vol.7, pp.14-22, 1985.

J. Roberts and M. Sherriff, The fate and survival of amalgam and preformed crown mol ar restorations placed in a specialist paediatric dental practice, Br Dent J, vol.169, issue.9, p.285, 1990.

R. Hickel and A. Voss, A comparison of glass cermet cement and amalgamrestorations in primary molars, J Dent Child, vol.57, pp.184-192, 1990.

C. Walls, A. Murray, J. Mccabe, and J. , The use of glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cements in the deciduous dentition, British Dental Journal, vol.165, issue.1, pp.13-20, 1988.
DOI : 10.1038/sj.bdj.4806480

R. Welbury, A. Walls, J. Murray, and J. Mccabe, The 5-year results of a clinical trial comparing a glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement restoration with an amalgam restoration, British Dental Journal, vol.170, issue.5, pp.177-181, 1991.
DOI : 10.1038/sj.bdj.4807465

L. Marks, K. Weerheijm, W. Van-amerongen, H. Groen, and L. Martens, Dyract versus Tytin Class II Restorations in Primary Molars: 36 Months Evaluation, Caries Research, vol.33, issue.5, pp.387-92, 1999.
DOI : 10.1159/000016538

D. Taifour, J. Frencken, N. Beiruti, M. Van-'t-hof, and G. Truin, Effectiveness of Glass-Ionomer (ART) and Amalgam Restorations in the Deciduous Dentition: Results after 3 Years, Caries Research, vol.36, issue.6, pp.437-481, 2002.
DOI : 10.1159/000066531

. Essai-clinique, Taux d'échec des restaurations classe II amalgames (58%) ne différait pas significativement de celui des CVI (51%) à 3 ans (Critères de Frencken et al, soit un taux de survie cumulatif à 3 ans de 427% (CVI) (p>0,05). Grade B1, p.9, 1996.

E. Honkala, J. Behbehani, H. Ibricevic, E. Kerosuo, A. et al., The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach to restoring primary teeth in a standard dental clinic, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.13, issue.Suppl. 1, pp.172-181, 2003.
DOI : 10.1046/j.1365-263X.2003.00455.x

V. Qvist, L. Laurberg, A. Poulsen, and P. Teglers, Longevity and Cariostatic Effects of Everyday Conventional Glass-ionomer and Amalgam Restorations in Primary Teeth: Three-year Results, Journal of Dental Research, vol.76, issue.7, pp.1387-1396, 1997.
DOI : 10.1177/00220345970760070901

V. Qvist, L. Laurberg, A. Poulsen, and P. Teglers, Eight???year study on conventional glass ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth, Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, vol.23, issue.6, pp.37-45, 2004.
DOI : 10.1080/00016350310008689

E. Mass, M. Gordon, and A. Fuks, Assessment of compomer proximal restorations in primary molars: a retrospective study in children, J Dent Child, vol.66, pp.93-100, 1999.

K. Donly, A. Segura, M. Kanellis, and R. Erickson, CLINICAL PERFORMANCE AND CARIES INHIBITION OF RESIN-MODIFIED GLASS IONOMER CEMENT AND AMALGAM RESTORATIONS, The Journal of the American Dental Association, vol.130, issue.10, pp.1459-66, 1999.
DOI : 10.14219/jada.archive.1999.0056

M. Duggal, K. Toumba, and N. Sharma, Clinical performance of a compomer and amalgam for the interproximal restoration of primary molars: a 24-month evaluation, British Dental Journal, vol.128, issue.6, pp.339-381, 2002.
DOI : 10.1038/sj.bdj.4801560

. Essai-clinique-en-bouche-fractionnée, Restaurations réalisées sans digue (Critères USPHS) Taux de perte complète des amalgames de 6,6% versus 3

K. Kavvadia, A. Kakaboura, A. Vanderas, and L. Papagiannoulis, Clinical evaluation of a compomer and an amalgam primary teeth class II restorations: a 2-year comparative study, Pediatr Dent, vol.26, pp.245-50, 2004.

. Essai-clinique-en-bouche-fractionnée, Evaluation des restaurations avec critères USPHS sur 24 mois. Taux d'échecs des amalgames (2%) ne différent pas

N. Kotsanos and P. Dionysopoulos, Lack of effect of fluoride releasing resin modified glass ionom er restorations on the contacting surface of adjacent primary molars: a clinical prospective study, Eur J Paediatr Dent, vol.5, pp.136-142, 2004.

. Essai-clinique-en-bouche-fractionnée, Evaluation des restaurations avec les critères USPHS sur 24 mois et présence d'une lésion carieuse sur la face adjacente à la restauration, saine, essentiellement recherchée. Taux d'échec des amalgames (2,4% dans chaque groupe) n'était pas significativement

T. Oldenburg, W. Vann, . Jr, and D. Dilley, Comparison of composite and amalgam in posterior teeth of children, Dental Materials, vol.3, issue.4
DOI : 10.1016/S0109-5641(87)80031-3

E. Tonn, G. Ryge, and D. Chambers, A two-year clinical study of a carvable composite resin used as class II restorations in primary molars, J Dent Child, vol.47, pp.405-418, 1980.

E. Honkala, J. Behbehani, H. Ibricevic, E. Kerosuo, A. et al., The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach to restoring primary teeth in a standard dental clinic, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.13, issue.Suppl. 1, pp.172-79, 2003.
DOI : 10.1046/j.1365-263X.2003.00455.x

. Etude-en-bouche-fractionnée, Amalgame versus CVI (Chem-Flex, Dentsply) non significatif

. Dans, 1% pour 1 face et 100% pour multi-faces) et la seconde à 22 mois (93,7% pour 1 face et 83, pp.3-983

D. Taifour, J. Frencken, N. Beiruti, M. Hof, and G. Truin, Effectiveness of Glass-Ionomer (ART) and Amalgam Restorations in the Deciduous Dentition: Results after 3 Years, Caries Research, vol.36, issue.6, pp.437-481, 2002.
DOI : 10.1159/000066531

. Etude-en-groupes-parallèles, Amalgame versus CVI (Fuji IX, GC ; Ketac Molar, 3MESPE) avec une différence significative en faveur des CVI pour classes I (et pas pour classes II)

H. Yip, R. Smales, Y. C. Deng, and D. , Comparison of ART and conventional cavity preparation for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars : 1-tear resulst, Quintessence Int, vol.33, pp.17-21, 2002.

C. Yu, X. Gao, D. Deng, H. Yip, and R. Smales, Survival of glass ionomer restorations placed in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity preparations: 2-year results, International Dental Journal, vol.81, issue.Special Issue A, pp.42-46, 2004.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1875-595X.2004.tb00251.x

. Survie-des, I. Fuji, and . Gp, -1 face à 1 an : 95% (ET 3,8) et 2 ans : 89% (ET 6,5) (d'après article original 94, pp.7-12

A. Louw, I. Saravn, U. Chikte, and E. Honkala, one-year evaluation of ART and minimal intervention techniques on primary teeth, S Afr Dent J, vol.57, pp.366-71, 2002.

Y. Luo, S. Wei, M. Fan, and E. Lo, Clinical investigation of a high-strengh glass ionomer restorative used with the ART technique in Wuhan, China : 1-year results, Chin J Dent Res, vol.2, pp.73-78, 1999.

E. Lo, Y. Luo, M. Fan, and S. Wei, Clinical Investigation of Two Glass???Ionomer Restoratives Used with the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment Approach in China: Two???Years Results, Caries Research, vol.35, issue.6, pp.458-63, 2001.
DOI : 10.1159/000047490

M. Van-gemert-schriks, W. Van-amerongen, J. Cate, and I. Aartman, Three-year survival of single- and two-surface ART restorations in a high-caries child population, Clinical Oral Investigations, vol.24, issue.3, pp.337-380, 2007.
DOI : 10.1007/s00784-007-0138-8

N. Ersin, U. Candan, A. Aykut, O. Oncag, C. Eronat et al., A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach, The Journal of the American Dental Association, vol.137, issue.11, pp.1529-1536, 2006.
DOI : 10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0087

L. Marks, W. Van-amerongen, P. Borgmeijer, H. Groen, and L. Martens, Ketac Molar Versus Dyract Class II restorations in primary molars: twelve month clinical results, ASDC J Dent Child, vol.67, pp.37-41, 2000.

?. Conclusion and . Par-comparaison-À-la-rsl-de-mickenautsh, qui comparait les restaurations aux amalgames et les ART, 2002.

. Résultats, Taux de survie, exprimé sur un graphique, plus important pour la digue

T. Carvalho, F. Sampaio, A. Diniz, M. Bönecker, and W. Van-amerongen, Two years survival rate of Class II ART restorations in primary molars using two ways to avoid saliva contamination, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.19, issue.6, pp.419-425, 2010.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2010.01060.x

. Résultats, 1% (18) de survie pour rouleaux de coton et 20% (32,1) pour la digue (pas de différence significative)

. Titre, Influence de la taille de la cavité sur la survie des restaurations des molaires temporaires réalisées selon la méthode atraumatique de restauration (ART) (60)

A. Raskin, B. Michotte-theall, and J. Vreven, Clinical evaluation of a posterior composite 10-year report, Journal of Dentistry, vol.27, issue.1, pp.13-19, 1999.
DOI : 10.1016/S0300-5712(98)00026-8

K. Huth, J. Manhard, R. Hickel, and K. Kunzelmann, Three-year clinical performance of a compomer in stress-bearing restorations in permanent posterior teeth, Am J Dent, vol.16, pp.255-259, 2003.

H. Autorité-de-santé-hickel, R. Kaaden, C. Paschos, E. Buerkle, V. García-godoy et al., Niveau de preuve et gradation des recommandations de bonne pratique . Saint-Denis-la-Plaine : HAS, 2013 Longevity of occlusally-stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth Does fluoride in compomers prevent future caries in children ?, Am J Dent J Dent Res, vol.22121888, pp.198-211276, 2005.

A. Banerjee, M. Muller-bolla, D. Bourgeois, M. Sixou, L. Lupi-pegurier et al., Atraumatic restorative treatment versus amalgam restoration longevity : a systematic review, Clin Oral Investig, vol.17

M. Matysiak, La sécurité des amalgames dentaires pour les patients et l'environnement au regard des positions de la communauté scientifique. Pratiques et organisations des soins, pp.133-177, 2009.

R. Kovarik, Restoration of Posterior Teeth in Clinical Practice: Evidence Base for Choosing Amalgam Versus Composite, Dental Clinics of North America, vol.53, issue.1, pp.71-77, 2009.
DOI : 10.1016/j.cden.2008.11.001

A. Bisphenol and A. , Travaux de l'Anses sur les usages et effets, recommandations [Internet]

K. Jedeon, A. Berdal, and S. Babajko, The tooth, target organ of bisphenol A, could be used as a biomarker of exposure to this agent, In: Bisphenol A. Nova Science Publishers, pp.205-230, 2014.

T. Croll and J. Nicholson, Glass ionomer cements in pediatric dentistry: review of the literature, Pediatr Dent, vol.24, issue.5, pp.423-432, 2002.

A. Mata and R. Bebermeyer, Stainless steel crowns versus amalgams in the primary dentition and decision-making in clinical practice, Gen Dent, vol.54, issue.351, pp.347-50, 2006.

J. Frencken, The state-of-the-art of ART restorations, Dent Update, vol.41, issue.3, pp.218-238, 2014.

A. Brunthaler, F. König, T. Lucas, W. Sperr, and A. Schedle, Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a review, Clinical Oral Investigations, vol.27, issue.2, pp.63-70, 2003.
DOI : 10.1007/s00784-003-0206-7

R. Randall, M. Vrijhoef, and N. Wilson, EFFICACY OF PREFORMED METAL CROWNS VS. AMALGAM RESTORATIONS, The Journal of the American Dental Association, vol.131, issue.3, pp.337-380, 2000.
DOI : 10.14219/jada.archive.2000.0177

D. Mccomb, Systematic review of conservative operative caries management strategies

R. Randall, Preformed metal crowns for primary and permanent molar teeth: review of the literature, Pediatr Dent, vol.24, issue.5, pp.489-500, 2002.

R. Hickel, C. Kaaden, E. Paschos, V. Buerkle, F. García-godoy et al., Longevity of occlusally-stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth, Am J Dent, vol.18, issue.3, pp.198-211, 2005.

M. Van-'t-hof, J. Frencken, W. Van-palenstein-helderman, and C. Holmgren, The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach for managing dental caries: a meta analysis, Int Dent J. déc, vol.56, issue.6, pp.345-51, 2006.

B. Chadwick and D. Evans, Restoration of class II cavities in primary molar teeth with conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements: a systematic review of the literature, European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.54, issue.1
DOI : 10.1007/BF03262565

N. Krämer and R. Frankenberger, Compomers in restorative therapy of children: a literature review, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.52, issue.1, pp.2-9, 2007.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2005.00650.x

N. Innes, D. Ricketts, and D. Evans, Preformed metal crowns for decayed primary molar teeth, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, issue.1, p.5512, 2007.

N. Kilpatrick and A. Neumann, Durability of amalgam in the restoration of class II cavities in primary molars: a systematic review of the literature, European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.170, issue.9, pp.5-13, 2007.
DOI : 10.1007/BF03262564

V. Yengopal, S. Harneker, N. Patel, and N. Siegfried, Dental fillings for the treatment of caries in the primary dentition, Cochrane Database Syst Rev Online, issue.2, p.4483, 2009.

S. Mickenautsch, V. Yengopal, and A. Banerjee, Atraumatic restorative treatment versus amalgam restoration longevity: a systematic review, Clinical Oral Investigations, vol.357, issue.3, pp.233-273, 2010.
DOI : 10.1007/s00784-009-0335-8

S. Mickenautsch, Failure rate of atraumatic restorative treatment using high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement compared to that of conventional amalgam restorative treatment in primary and permanent teeth : a systematic review update -II, J Minim Interv Dent, vol.5, pp.213-72, 2012.

S. Mickenautsch, Failure rate of atraumatic restorative treatment using high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement compared to that of conventional amalgam restorative treatment in primary and permanent teeth : a systematic review update -III, J Minim Interv Dent, vol.5, pp.273-331, 2012.

S. Mickenautsch, Failure rate of atraumatic restorative treatment using high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement compared to that of conventional amalgam restorative treatment in primary and permanent teeth : a systematic review update -Protocol, J Minim Interv Dent, vol.5, pp.29-42, 2012.

S. Mickenautsch, Failure rate of atraumatic restorative treatment using high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement compared to that of conventional amalgam restorative treatment in primary and permanent teeth : a systematic review update -Erratum, J Minim Interv Dent, vol.5, pp.209-219, 2012.

S. Mickenautsch and V. Yengopal, Failure rate of high-viscosity GIC based ART compared with that of conventional amalgam restorations--evidence from an update of a systematic review, pp.329-360, 2012.

R. De-amorim, S. Leal, and J. Frencken, Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis, Clinical Oral Investigations, vol.14, issue.2, pp.429-470, 2012.
DOI : 10.1007/s00784-011-0513-3

D. Raggio, D. Hesse, T. Lenzi, A. Guglielmi, C. Braga et al., Is Atraumatic restorative treatment an option for restoring occlusoproximal caries lesions in primary teeth? A systematic review and meta-analysis, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.321, issue.6, pp.435-478, 2013.
DOI : 10.1111/ipd.12013

B. Chadwick, P. Dummer, F. Dunstan, A. Gilmour, E. Jones et al., The Longevity of dental restorations. A systematic review. NHS Centre of reviews and dissemination, 2001.

M. Cajazeira, D. Sabóia, T. Maia, and L. , Influence of the operatory field isolation technique on tooth-colored direct dental restorations, Am J Dent, vol.27, issue.3, pp.155-164, 2014.

K. Bücher, I. Metz, V. Pitchika, R. Hickel, and J. Kühnisch, Survival characteristics of composite restorations in primary teeth, Clinical Oral Investigations, vol.43, issue.7 Suppl, pp.31-2014
DOI : 10.1007/s00784-014-1389-9

K. Bücher, A. Tautz, R. Hickel, and J. Kühnisch, Longevity of composite restorations in patients with early childhood caries (ECC), Clinical Oral Investigations, vol.64, issue.2, pp.775-82, 2014.
DOI : 10.1007/s00784-013-1043-y

R. De-amorim, S. Leal, J. Mulder, N. Creugers, and J. Frencken, Amalgam and ART restorations in children: a controlled clinical trial, Clinical Oral Investigations, vol.137, issue.1, pp.117-141, 2014.
DOI : 10.1007/s00784-013-0955-x

D. Hesse, C. Bonifácio, F. Mendes, M. Braga, J. Imparato et al., Sealing versus partial caries removal in primary molars: a randomized clinical trial, BMC Oral Health, vol.16, issue.1, p.58, 2014.
DOI : 10.1016/j.cden.2010.03.001

L. Hilgert, R. De-amorim, S. Leal, J. Mulder, N. Creugers et al., Is high-viscosity glass-ionomer-cement a successor to amalgam for treating primary molars?, Dental Materials, vol.30, issue.10, pp.1172-1180, 2014.
DOI : 10.1016/j.dental.2014.07.010

K. Ludwig, M. Fontana, L. Vinson, J. Platt, and J. Dean, The success of stainless steel crowns placed with the Hall technique, The Journal of the American Dental Association, vol.145, issue.12, pp.1248-53, 1939.
DOI : 10.14219/jada.2014.89

M. Mijan, R. De-amorim, S. Leal, J. Mulder, L. Oliveira et al., The 3.5-year survival rates of primary molars treated according to three treatment protocols: a controlled clinical trial, Clinical Oral Investigations, vol.39, issue.4, pp.1061-1070, 2014.
DOI : 10.1007/s00784-013-1077-1

G. Pinto, L. Oliveira, A. Romano, L. Schardosim, M. Bonow et al., Longevity of posterior restorations in primary teeth: Results from a paediatric dental clinic, Journal of Dentistry, vol.42, issue.10, pp.1248-54, 2014.
DOI : 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.08.005

C. Bonifácio, D. Hesse, M. Bönecker, C. Van-loveren, W. Van-amerongen et al., A preliminary clinical trial using flowable glass-ionomer cement as a liner in proximal-ART restorations: The operator effect, Medicina Oral Patolog??a Oral y Cirugia Bucal, vol.18, issue.3, pp.529-561, 2013.
DOI : 10.4317/medoral.18497

C. Bonifácio, D. Hesse, D. Raggio, M. Bönecker, C. Van-loveren et al., The effect of GIC-brand on the survival rate of proximal-art restorations, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.11, issue.Suppl, pp.251-259, 2013.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2012.01259.x

L. Casagrande, D. Dalpian, T. Ardenghi, F. Zanatta, C. Balbinot et al., Randomized clinical trial of adhesive restorations in primary molars. 18 -month results

C. Da-franca, V. Colares, and E. Van-amerongen, Two-year evaluation of the atraumatic restorative treatment approach in primary molars class I and II restorations, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.13, issue.4, pp.249-53, 2011.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2011.01125.x

N. Innes, D. Evans, and D. Stirrups, Sealing Caries in Primary Molars: Randomized Control Trial, 5-year Results, Journal of Dental Research, vol.90, issue.12, pp.1405-1415, 2011.
DOI : 10.1177/0022034511422064

A. Kemoli and W. Amerongen, Effects of oral hygiene, residual caries and cervical Marginal-gaps on the survival of proximal atraumatic restorative treatment approach restorations, Contemporary Clinical Dentistry, vol.2, issue.4, pp.318-341, 2011.
DOI : 10.4103/0976-237X.91796

A. Kemoli, G. Opinya, W. Van-amerongen, and S. Mwalili, Two-year survival rates of proximal atraumatic restorative treatment restorations in relation to glass ionomer cements and Postrestoration meals consumed, Pediatr Dent, vol.33, issue.3, pp.246-51, 2011.

N. Kotsanos and S. Arizos, Evaluation of a resin modified glass ionomer serving both as indirect pulp therapy and as restorative material for primary molars, European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.32, issue.1, pp.170-175, 2011.
DOI : 10.1007/BF03262801

N. Roshan and B. Sakeenabi, Survival of occlusal ART restorations in primary molars placed in school environment and hospital dental setup-one year follow-up study, Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal, vol.16, issue.7, pp.973-980, 2011.

M. Santos, R. Luiz, and L. Maia, Randomised trial of resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 48-Month results, Journal of Dentistry, vol.38, issue.6, pp.451-460, 2010.
DOI : 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.02.004

T. Carvalho, F. Sampaio, A. Diniz, M. Bönecker, and W. Van-amerongen, Two years survival rate of Class II ART restorations in primary molars using two ways to avoid saliva contamination, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.19, issue.6, pp.419-444, 2010.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2010.01060.x

G. Deepa and T. Shobha, A clinical evaluation of two glass ionomer cements in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment technique in India: 1???year follow up, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.172, issue.6, pp.410-418, 2010.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2010.01067.x

F. Ertugrul, D. Cogulu, Y. Ozdemir, and N. Ersin, Comparison of Conventional versus Colored Compomers for Class II Restorations in Primary Molars: A 12-Month Clinical Study, Medical Principles and Practice, vol.19, issue.2, pp.148-52, 2010.
DOI : 10.1159/000273077

A. Kemoli, G. Opinya, and W. Van-amerongen, Two-year survival of glass ionomer sealants placed as part of proximal atraumatic restorative treatment restorations, East Afr Med J, vol.87, issue.9, pp.375-81, 2010.

A. Kemoli, W. Van-amerongen, and G. Opinya, Influence of different isolation methods on the survival of proximal ART restorations in primary molars after two years, European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.54, issue.1, pp.136-145, 2010.
DOI : 10.1007/BF03262729

V. Qvist, A. Poulsen, P. Teglers, and I. Mjör, The longevity of different restorations in primary teeth, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.18, issue.1, pp.1-7, 2010.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2009.01017.x

A. Oba, A. Sönmez, I. Sari, and S. , Clinical evaluation of a colored compomer in primary molars, Med Princ Pract Int J Kuwait Univ Health Sci Cent, vol.18, issue.1, pp.31-35, 2009.

M. Santos, M. Passos, R. Luiz, and L. Maia, A randomized trial of resin-based restorations in class I and class II beveled preparations in primary molars, The Journal of the American Dental Association, vol.140, issue.2
DOI : 10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0129

A. Kemoli, W. Van-amerongen, and G. Opinya, Influence of the experience of operator and assistant on the survival rate of proximal ART restorations: two-year results, European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.54, issue.4, pp.227-259, 2009.
DOI : 10.1007/BF03262687

A. Kemoli and W. Van-amerongen, Influence of the cavity-size on the survival rate of proximal ART restorations in primary molars, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.3, issue.6, pp.423-453, 2009.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2009.01013.x

A. Topaloglu-ak, E. Eden, J. Frencken, and O. Oncag, Two years survival rate of class II composite resin restorations prepared by ART with and without a chemomechanical caries removal gel in primary molars, Clinical Oral Investigations, vol.30, issue.3, pp.325-357, 2009.
DOI : 10.1007/s00784-008-0241-5

F. Trachtenberg, N. Maserejian, J. Soncini, C. Hayes, and M. Tavares, Does Fluoride in Compomers Prevent Future Caries in Children?, Journal of Dental Research, vol.88, issue.3, pp.276-285, 2009.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1875-595X.1999.tb00525.x

G. Yassen, One-year survival of occlusal ART restorations in primary molars placed with and without cavity conditioner, J Dent Child Chic Ill, vol.76, issue.2, pp.136-177, 2009.

A. Kemoli and W. Van-amerongen, The dilemma of selecting suitable proximal carious lesions in primary molars for restoration using ART technique, Community Dent Health, vol.28, issue.1, pp.12-18, 2011.

C. Bonifácio, D. Hesse, O. De-rocha, M. Bonecker, D. Raggio et al., Survival rate of proximal-ART restorations using a two-layer technique for glass ionomer insertion, 2012.

M. Lagarde and M. Muller-bolla, Matériaux de restauration des molaires temporaires remplaçant les amalgames, Clinic, vol.36, pp.307-320, 2015.

V. Yengopal and S. Mickenautsch, Resin-modified glass-ionomer cements versus

M. Roccuzzo, M. Aglietta, and L. Cordaro, Implant loading protocols for partially edentulous maxillary posterior sites, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, vol.24, 2009.

W. Martin, E. Lewis, and A. Nicol, Local risk factors for implant therapy, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, vol.24, pp.28-38, 2009.

M. Schätzle, R. Männchen, M. Zwahlen, and N. Lang, Survival and failure rates of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices: a systematic review, Clinical Oral Implants Research, vol.18, issue.12, pp.1351-1360, 2009.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01754.x

M. Das, U. Viswanath, D. Azher, and U. , Clinical Evaluation of Resin Composite and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer in Class III Restorations of Primary Maxillary Incisors: A Comparative In Vivo Study, International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, vol.2, 2009.
DOI : 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1024

T. De-rouck, K. Collys, and J. Cosyn, Single-tooth replacement in the anterior maxilla by means of immediate implantation and provisionalization: a review, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, vol.23, issue.5, pp.897-904, 2008.

C. García, C. , B. López, A. , P. Diago et al., Immediately restored dental implants for partial-arch applications. A literature update, Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal, vol.13, issue.7, pp.451-456, 2008.

H. Weber and C. Sukotjo, Does the type of implant prosthesis affect outcomes in the partially edentulous patient?, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, vol.22, 2007.

D. Edelhoff and M. Ozcan, To what extent does the longevity of fixed dental prostheses depend on the function of the cement? Working Group 4 materials: cementation, Clinical Oral Implants Research, vol.7, issue.(Suppl. 1), pp.193-204, 2007.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01442.x

M. Lulic, U. Brägger, N. Lang, M. Zwahlen, and G. Salvi, Ante's (1926) law revisited: a systematic review on survival rates and complications of fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) on severely reduced periodontal tissue support, Clinical Oral Implants Research, vol.53, pp.63-72, 2007.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01438.x

D. Ricketts, E. Kidd, N. Innes, and J. Clarkson, Complete or ultraconservative removal of decayed tissue in unfilled teeth, Australian Dental Journal, vol.139, issue.3, 2006.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2009.01133.x

T. Donovan, Longevity of the tooth/restoration complex: a review, J Calif Dent Assoc. Feb, vol.34, issue.2, pp.122-130, 2006.

J. Nissan, O. Rosner, E. Barnea, and D. Assif, Full arch impression techniques utilizing addition type poly vinyl siloxane for fabrication of tooth born fixed partial dentures, Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim, vol.23, issue.1, pp.42-48, 2006.

T. Dodson, Predictors of dental implant survival, J Mass Dent Soc, 2006.

D. Mccomb, Conservative operative management strategies. Dent Clin North Am, pp.847-65, 2005.

R. Castillo, R. Drago, and C. , Indexing and Provisional Restoration of Single Implants, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, vol.63, issue.9, pp.11-21, 2005.
DOI : 10.1016/j.joms.2005.05.311

J. Wakiaga, P. Brunton, N. Silikas, and A. Glenny, Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, issue.1, p.4347, 2004.

N. Seale, The use of stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent, pp.501-506, 2002.

A. Fuks, The use of amalgam in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent, 2002.

F. Demarco, M. Correa, M. Cenci, R. Moraes, and N. Opdam, Longevity of posterior composite restorations: Not only a matter of materials, Dental Materials, vol.28, issue.1, pp.87-101, 2012.
DOI : 10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.003

N. Etude-sur-dents-permanents-frankenberger, C. Reinelt, and N. Krämer, Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in extended class II cavities: 8-year results, Clinical Oral Investigations, vol.18, issue.Suppl 1, pp.125-137, 2014.
DOI : 10.1007/s00784-013-0957-8

A. Etude-sur-dents-permanents-boeckler, H. Schaller, C. A. Gernhardt, and . Prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial of a one-step, self-etch adhesive with and without an intermediary layer of a flowable composite: a 2-year evaluation, Quintessence Int, vol.43, pp.279-286, 2012.

M. Correa, M. Peres, K. Peres, B. Horta, A. Barros et al., Amalgam or composite resin? Factors influencing the choice of restorative material, Journal of Dentistry, vol.40, issue.9, pp.703-713, 2012.
DOI : 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.04.020

F. Moura, A. Romano, R. Lund, E. Piva, R. Jr et al., Three-year clinical performance of composite restorations placed by undergraduate dental students, Brazilian Dental Journal, vol.22, issue.2, pp.111-117, 2011.
DOI : 10.1590/S0103-64402011000200004

G. Molina, I. Mazzola, L. Brain, R. Cabral, and J. Frencken, Mechanical performance of encapsulated restorative glass-ionomer cements for use with Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART), Journal of Applied Oral Science, vol.21, issue.3, pp.243-249, 2013.
DOI : 10.1590/1679-775720130129

J. Kühnisch, U. Mansmann, R. Heinrich-weltzien, and R. Hickel, Longevity of materials for pit and fissure sealing???Results from a meta-analysis, Dental Materials, vol.28, issue.3, pp.298-303, 2012.
DOI : 10.1016/j.dental.2011.11.002

. Etude-sur-dents, B. Borges, B. De-souza, R. Braz, M. Montes et al., Arrest of noncavitated dentinal occlusal caries by sealing pits and fissures: a 36-month, randomised controlled clinical trial, Int Dent J, vol.62, pp.251-255, 2012.

E. Ercan, T. Dulgergil, . Soymanm, M. Dalli, and I. Yildirim, A field-trial of two restorative materials used with atraumatic restorative treatment in rural Turkey: 24-month results, Journal of Applied Oral Science, vol.17, issue.4, pp.307-314, 2009.
DOI : 10.1590/S1678-77572009000400008

J. Van-dijken and U. Pallesen, Clinical performance of a hybrid resin composite with and without an intermediate layer of flowable resin composite: A 7-year evaluation, Dental Materials, vol.27, issue.2, pp.150-156, 2011.
DOI : 10.1016/j.dental.2010.09.010

L. Casagrande, C. Falster, D. Hipolito, V. , D. Góes et al., Effect of adhesive restorations over incomplete dentin caries removal: 5-year followup study in primary teeth, J Dent Child, vol.76, pp.117-122, 2009.

A. Farag, W. Van-der-sanden, H. Abdelwahab, J. Mulder, and J. Frencken, 5-Year survival of ART restorations with and without cavity disinfection, Journal of Dentistry, vol.37, issue.6, pp.468-474, 2009.
DOI : 10.1016/j.jdent.2009.03.002

. Etudes-sur-dents and S. Sidhu, Clinical evaluations of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations, Dent Mater, vol.26, pp.7-12, 2010.

J. Etude-sur-dents-permanentes-frencken, M. Peters, D. Manton, S. Leal, V. Gordan et al., Minimal intervention dentistry for managing dental caries -a review: report of a FDI task group, Int Dent J, vol.62, issue.5, pp.223-266, 2012.

R. Estupiñán-day, S. Tellez, M. Kaur, S. Milner, T. Solari et al., Managing dental caries with atraumatic restorative treatment in children: successful experience in three Latin American countries, Revista Panamericana de Salud P??blica, vol.33, issue.4, pp.237-280
DOI : 10.1590/S1020-49892013000400001

A. Farag, W. Van-der-sanden, H. Abdelwahab, and J. Frencken, Survival of ART restorations assessed using selected FDI and modified ART restoration criteria, Clinical Oral Investigations, vol.30, issue.3, pp.409-424, 2011.
DOI : 10.1007/s00784-010-0403-0

. Etude-sur-dents, C. Bonifacio, W. Van-amerongen, T. Meschini, D. Raggio et al., Flowable glass ionomer cement as a liner: improving marginal adaptation of atraumatic restorative treatment restorations, J Dent Child, vol.77, issue.1, pp.12-18, 2010.

J. Frencken, Evolution of the the ART approach: highlights and achievements, Journal of Applied Oral Science, vol.17, issue.spe, pp.78-83, 2009.
DOI : 10.1590/S1678-77572009000700014

E. Lula, V. Monteiro-neto, and C. Alves, Microbiological Analysis after Complete or Partial Removal of Carious Dentin in Primary Teeth: A Randomized Clinical Trial, Caries Research, vol.43, issue.5, pp.354-358, 2009.
DOI : 10.1159/000231572

S. Mickenautsch, V. Yengopal, S. Leal, L. Oliveira, A. Bezerra et al., Absence of carious lesions at margins of glass-ionomer and amalgam restorations: a meta-analysis, Eur J Paediatr Dent, vol.10, pp.41-46, 2009.

A. Topaloglu-ak, E. Eden, and J. Frencken, Managing dental caries in children in Turkey--a discussion paper Description du système de santé Yengopal V, Mickenautsch S, Berazza AC, Leal SC Caries preventive effect of glass ionomer and resin-based fissure sealants on permanent teeth: a meta analysis, BMC Oral Health. J Oral Sci, vol.9, issue.51, pp.32373-382, 2009.