Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Clinical evaluation of multiple-surface ART restorations: 12 month follow-up.
J Dent Child (Chic). 2007 Sep-Dec; 74(3):203-8.JD

Abstract

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of multiple-surface restorations employing 2 different glass ionomer cements (GICs) and the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach in permanent molar teeth.

METHODS

This study examined 60 restorations--36 Class I restorations involving 2 or more tooth surfaces and 24 Class II restorations--that were placed in 46 schoolchildren (9-16 years of age) by 2 dentists using the ART approach. The restorations were randomly divided into 2 groups: (a) 30 cavities were filled with high strength GIC (Ketac Molar-3M ESPE), and (b) 30 cavities were filled with resin-modified GIC (Fuji VIII-GC Corp). Two independent calibrated examiners carried out the evaluations according to ART criteria. The interexaminer kappa was 0.92. Data were submitted to chi-square, McNemar, and Fisher's tests. A difference was statistically significant if P<.05.

RESULTS

In a 12-month follow-up, 59 restorations were evaluated. The success rates of the restorations were 100% and 93% for Fuji VIII and Ketac Molar, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between GICs, cavity types, or operators.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a 12-month follow-up evaluation, the clinical performance of the multiple-surface atraumatic restorative treatment restorations of both glass ionomer cements (high-strength and resin-modified) was considered satisfactory with a high success rate.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Dentistry, University of North of Paraná, PR, Brazil.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

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

Language

eng

PubMed ID

18482515

Citation

Cefaly, Daniela F G., et al. "Clinical Evaluation of Multiple-surface ART Restorations: 12 Month Follow-up." Journal of Dentistry for Children (Chicago, Ill.), vol. 74, no. 3, 2007, pp. 203-8.
Cefaly DF, Barata TJ, Bresciani E, et al. Clinical evaluation of multiple-surface ART restorations: 12 month follow-up. J Dent Child (Chic). 2007;74(3):203-8.
Cefaly, D. F., Barata, T. J., Bresciani, E., Fagundes, T. C., Lauris, J. R., & Navarro, M. F. (2007). Clinical evaluation of multiple-surface ART restorations: 12 month follow-up. Journal of Dentistry for Children (Chicago, Ill.), 74(3), 203-8.
Cefaly DF, et al. Clinical Evaluation of Multiple-surface ART Restorations: 12 Month Follow-up. J Dent Child (Chic). 2007 Sep-Dec;74(3):203-8. PubMed PMID: 18482515.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Clinical evaluation of multiple-surface ART restorations: 12 month follow-up. AU - Cefaly,Daniela F G, AU - Barata,Terezinha J E, AU - Bresciani,Eduardo, AU - Fagundes,Ticiane C, AU - Lauris,José R P, AU - Navarro,Maria F L, PY - 2008/5/17/pubmed PY - 2008/7/29/medline PY - 2008/5/17/entrez SP - 203 EP - 8 JF - Journal of dentistry for children (Chicago, Ill.) JO - J Dent Child (Chic) VL - 74 IS - 3 N2 - PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of multiple-surface restorations employing 2 different glass ionomer cements (GICs) and the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach in permanent molar teeth. METHODS: This study examined 60 restorations--36 Class I restorations involving 2 or more tooth surfaces and 24 Class II restorations--that were placed in 46 schoolchildren (9-16 years of age) by 2 dentists using the ART approach. The restorations were randomly divided into 2 groups: (a) 30 cavities were filled with high strength GIC (Ketac Molar-3M ESPE), and (b) 30 cavities were filled with resin-modified GIC (Fuji VIII-GC Corp). Two independent calibrated examiners carried out the evaluations according to ART criteria. The interexaminer kappa was 0.92. Data were submitted to chi-square, McNemar, and Fisher's tests. A difference was statistically significant if P<.05. RESULTS: In a 12-month follow-up, 59 restorations were evaluated. The success rates of the restorations were 100% and 93% for Fuji VIII and Ketac Molar, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between GICs, cavity types, or operators. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a 12-month follow-up evaluation, the clinical performance of the multiple-surface atraumatic restorative treatment restorations of both glass ionomer cements (high-strength and resin-modified) was considered satisfactory with a high success rate. SN - 1935-5068 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/18482515/Clinical_evaluation_of_multiple_surface_ART_restorations:_12_month_follow_up_ L2 - https://www.ingentaconnect.com/openurl?genre=article&amp;issn=1935-5068&amp;volume=74&amp;issue=3&amp;spage=203&amp;aulast=Cefaly DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -