Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Survival of glass ionomer restorations placed in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity preparations: 2-year results.
Int Dent J. 2004 Feb; 54(1):42-6.ID

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the survival of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations placed in a dental clinic setting using both the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach with hand instruments, and conventional cavity preparation with rotary instruments.

METHOD AND MATERIALS

Two encapsulated high-strength conventional GICs (Fuji IX GP, Ketac-Molar Aplicap) were placed in 82 Class I and 53 Class II preparations and one encapsulated non-gamma 2 amalgam alloy (GK-amalgam) was placed in 32 Class I preparations, in the primary molars of 60 Chinese children with a mean age of 7.40 +/- 1.24 (SD) years. Thus, 9 treatment groups were formed.

RESULTS

After two years, there were no significant survival differences found among 7 of the 9 treatment groups (p = 0.99). However, two groups comprising Fuji IX GP and Ketac-Molar Aplicap placed in Class II cavities prepared using the ART approach showed significantly lower restoration survivals (p < 0.001). Only 3 of the 72 initially sealed fissures adjacent to the restorations appeared to retain any GIC material.

CONCLUSIONS

In a clinic setting, both the ART hand instrument and conventional rotary instrument methods were equally suitable for high Class I restoration survival, but not for Class II restoration survival where the conventional cavity preparation method was preferable.

Authors

No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

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

Language

eng

PubMed ID

15005472

Citation

Yu, C, et al. "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. 54, no. 1, 2004, pp. 42-6.
Yu C, Gao XJ, Deng DM, et al. Survival of glass ionomer restorations placed in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity preparations: 2-year results. Int Dent J. 2004;54(1):42-6.
Yu, C., Gao, X. J., Deng, D. M., Yip, H. K., & Smales, R. J. (2004). Survival of glass ionomer restorations placed in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity preparations: 2-year results. International Dental Journal, 54(1), 42-6.
Yu C, et al. Survival of Glass Ionomer Restorations Placed in Primary Molars Using Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) and Conventional Cavity Preparations: 2-year Results. Int Dent J. 2004;54(1):42-6. PubMed PMID: 15005472.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Survival of glass ionomer restorations placed in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity preparations: 2-year results. AU - Yu,C, AU - Gao,X J, AU - Deng,D M, AU - Yip,H K, AU - Smales,R J, PY - 2004/3/10/pubmed PY - 2004/3/31/medline PY - 2004/3/10/entrez SP - 42 EP - 6 JF - International dental journal JO - Int Dent J VL - 54 IS - 1 N2 - OBJECTIVE: To compare the survival of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations placed in a dental clinic setting using both the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach with hand instruments, and conventional cavity preparation with rotary instruments. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Two encapsulated high-strength conventional GICs (Fuji IX GP, Ketac-Molar Aplicap) were placed in 82 Class I and 53 Class II preparations and one encapsulated non-gamma 2 amalgam alloy (GK-amalgam) was placed in 32 Class I preparations, in the primary molars of 60 Chinese children with a mean age of 7.40 +/- 1.24 (SD) years. Thus, 9 treatment groups were formed. RESULTS: After two years, there were no significant survival differences found among 7 of the 9 treatment groups (p = 0.99). However, two groups comprising Fuji IX GP and Ketac-Molar Aplicap placed in Class II cavities prepared using the ART approach showed significantly lower restoration survivals (p < 0.001). Only 3 of the 72 initially sealed fissures adjacent to the restorations appeared to retain any GIC material. CONCLUSIONS: In a clinic setting, both the ART hand instrument and conventional rotary instrument methods were equally suitable for high Class I restoration survival, but not for Class II restoration survival where the conventional cavity preparation method was preferable. SN - 0020-6539 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/15005472/Survival_of_glass_ionomer_restorations_placed_in_primary_molars_using_atraumatic_restorative_treatment__ART__and_conventional_cavity_preparations:_2_year_results_ L2 - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/openurl?genre=article&amp;sid=nlm:pubmed&amp;issn=0020-6539&amp;date=2004&amp;volume=54&amp;issue=1&amp;spage=42 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -