Effectiveness of ART and traditional amalgam approach in restoring single‐surface cavities in posterior teeth of permanent dentitions in school children after 6.3 years
- 21 May 2007
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology
- Vol. 35 (3), 207-214
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2006.00322.x
Abstract
The Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach was compared with the traditional amalgam (TA) approach in order to test their appropriateness to complement a preventive and educational school oral health programme in Syria. Using a parallel group design, 370 and 311 grade 2 children were randomly assigned to the ART and the TA group respectively. Eight dentists placed 1117 single- and multiple-surface restorations. A modified actuarial method was used to estimate survival curves. The jackknife method was applied to calculate the standard error in the cumulative survival percentages. A statistically significant difference in cumulative survival percentages between single-surface non-occlusal ART and comparable amalgam restorations was observed after 4.3, 5.3 and 6.3 years. The survival of single-surface non-occlusal ART posterior restorations (80.2 +/- 4.9%) was statistically significantly higher than that of occlusal posterior ART restorations (64.8 +/- 3.9%) at evaluation year 6.3. There was no statistically significant difference observed between survival percentages of large (55.8 +/- 10%) and that of small (69.2 +/- 4.6%) single-surface posterior ART restorations after 6.3 years. There was an operator effect observed for single-surface ART and comparable amalgam restorations. Secondary caries was observed in 2.3% of single-surface ART restorations and in 3.7% of single-surface amalgam restorations during the 6.3 year observation period. The ART approach provided higher survival percentages for single-surface restorations than the TA approach over 6.3 years and is therefore appropriate for use in school oral health programmes. Secondary caries was only a minor reason for ART restorations to fail. An operator effect was observed for both treatment approaches.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- Microhardness of dentine underlying ART restorations in primary molars: an in vivo pilot studyBritish Dental Journal, 2005
- How ‘Clean’ Must a Cavity Be before Restoration?Caries Research, 2004
- Six-Year Success Rates of Occlusal Amalgam and Glass-Ionomer Restorations Placed Using Three Minimal Intervention ApproachesCaries Research, 2003
- Mutans streptococci strains prevalence before and after cavity preparation during Atraumatic Restorative TreatmentOral Microbiology and Immunology, 2003
- Atraumatic Restorative Treatment: Clinical, Ultrastructural and Chemical AnalysisCaries Research, 2002
- Effectiveness of Glass-Ionomer (ART) and Amalgam Restorations in the Deciduous Dentition: Results after 3 YearsCaries Research, 2002
- Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART): a Three‐year Community Field Trial in Thailand—Survival of One‐surface Restorations in the Permanent DentitionJournal of Public Health Dentistry, 1996
- Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART): Rationale, Technique, and DevelopmentJournal of Public Health Dentistry, 1996
- The Simplified Oral Hygiene IndexThe Journal of the American Dental Association, 1964