Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars: one-year results.
Quintessence Int. 2002 Jan; 33(1):17-21.QI

Abstract

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 MATERIALS

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 hand 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 hand 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.

Authors+Show Affiliations

University of British Columbia, Faculty of Dentistry, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. hkyip@hkusua.hku.hkNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

11887531

Citation

Yip, Hak-Kong, et al. "Comparison of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment and Conventional Cavity Preparations for Glass-ionomer Restorations in Primary Molars: One-year Results." Quintessence International (Berlin, Germany : 1985), vol. 33, no. 1, 2002, pp. 17-21.
Yip HK, Smales RJ, Yu C, et al. Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars: one-year results. Quintessence Int. 2002;33(1):17-21.
Yip, H. K., Smales, R. J., Yu, C., Gao, X. J., & Deng, D. M. (2002). Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars: one-year results. Quintessence International (Berlin, Germany : 1985), 33(1), 17-21.
Yip HK, et al. Comparison of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment and Conventional Cavity Preparations for Glass-ionomer Restorations in Primary Molars: One-year Results. Quintessence Int. 2002;33(1):17-21. PubMed PMID: 11887531.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars: one-year results. AU - Yip,Hak-Kong, AU - Smales,Roger J, AU - Yu,Chang, AU - Gao,Xu-Jun, AU - Deng,Dong-Mei, PY - 2002/3/13/pubmed PY - 2002/5/22/medline PY - 2002/3/13/entrez SP - 17 EP - 21 JF - Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985) JO - Quintessence Int VL - 33 IS - 1 N2 - 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 MATERIALS: 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 hand 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 hand 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. SN - 0033-6572 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/11887531/Comparison_of_atraumatic_restorative_treatment_and_conventional_cavity_preparations_for_glass_ionomer_restorations_in_primary_molars:_one_year_results_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -