A Field-trial of Two Restorative Materials Used with Atraumatic Restorative Treatment in Rural Turkey: 24-month Results

Overview

Journal J Appl Oral Sci

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2009 Aug 12

PMID 19668990

Citations 11

Authors

Ertugrul Ercan

C Turksel Dulgergil

Mubin Soyman

Mehmet Dalli

Isil Yildirim

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical performance of high-strength glass ionomer cement (HSGIC) and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) in single and multiple surface carious cavities in the field conditions.

Material And Methods: A split-mouth design, including ninety-one fillings placed on contra lateral molar pairs of 37 children, was used in permanent dentition. As filling materials, a HSGIC (Ketac Molar/3M ESPE) and a RMGIC (Vitremer/ 3M ESPE) were used with the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART). Baseline and 6, 12 and 24-month evaluations of the fillings were made with standard-ART and USPHS criteria by two examiners with kappa values of 0.92 and 0.87 for both criteria.

Results: According to the USPHS criteria, the retention rates of RMGIC and HSGIC restorations were 100% and 80.9% for single surface, and 100% and 41.2% for multiple surface restorations after 24 months, respectively. Irrespective of surface number, RMGIC was significantly superior to HSGIC (p= 0.004), according to both standard-ART and USPHS criteria.

Conclusion: The results indicate that RMGIC may be an alternative restorative technique in comparison to high-strength GIC applications in ART-field-trials. However, further clinical and field trials are needed to support this conclusion.

Citing Articles

A Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Chemomechanical (Carie-Care™) Versus Conventional Caries Removal for Atraumatic Restorative Treatment.

Gupta S, Pentapati K, Acharya S ScientificWorldJournal. 2025; 2025:6689053.

PMID: 39949659 PMC: 11824596. DOI: 10.1155/tswj/6689053.

A Two-Year Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Performance of a Nanohybrid Composite Resin to a Flowable Composite Resin.

Badr C, Spagnuolo G, Amenta F, Khairallah C, Mahdi S, Daher E J Funct Biomater. 2021; 12(3).

PMID: 34564200 PMC: 8482203. DOI: 10.3390/jfb12030051.

Atraumatic restorative treatment-ART in early childhood caries in babies: 4 years of randomized clinical trial.

Faustino-Silva D, Cancado Figueiredo M Clin Oral Investig. 2019; 23(10):3721-3729.

PMID: 30666480 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-02800-8.

Survival percentages of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations and sealants in posterior teeth: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

de Amorim R, Frencken J, Raggio D, Chen X, Hu X, Leal S Clin Oral Investig. 2018; 22(8):2703-2725.

PMID: 30232622 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2625-5.

Direct contra naïve-indirect comparison of clinical failure rates between high-viscosity GIC and conventional amalgam restorations: an empirical study.

Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V PLoS One. 2013; 8(10):e78397.

PMID: 24205220 PMC: 3810255. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078397.

References

Walls A, Wallwork M, Holland I, Murray J . The longevity of occlusal amalgam restorations in first permanent molars of child patients. Br Dent J. 1985; 158(4):133-6. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4805553. View

Butani Y, Levy S, Nowak A, Kanellis M, Heller K, Hartz A . Overview of the evidence for clinical interventions in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent. 2005; 27(1):6-11. View

Frencken J, Taifour D, van t Hof M . Survival of ART and amalgam restorations in permanent teeth of children after 6.3 years. J Dent Res. 2006; 85(7):622-6. DOI: 10.1177/154405910608500708. View

Cefaly D, Barata T, Bresciani E, Fagundes T, Lauris J, Navarro M . Clinical evaluation of multiple-surface ART restorations: 12 month follow-up. J Dent Child (Chic). 2008; 74(3):203-8. View

Croll T, Helpin M, Donly K . Vitremer restorative cement for children: three clinicians' observations in three pediatric dental practices. ASDC J Dent Child. 2001; 67(6):391-8, 374. View

Dutta B, Gauba K, Tewari A, Chawla H . Silver amalgam versus resin modified GIC class-II restorations in primary molars: twelve month clinical evaluation. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2002; 19(3):118-22. View

Smales R, Yip H . The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach for the management of dental caries. Quintessence Int. 2002; 33(6):427-32. View

Mandari G, Frencken J, vant Hof M . Six-year success rates of occlusal amalgam and glass-ionomer restorations placed using three minimal intervention approaches. Caries Res. 2003; 37(4):246-53. DOI: 10.1159/000070866. View

Lo E, Holmgren C, Hu D, van Palenstein Helderman W . Six-year follow up of atraumatic restorative treatment restorations placed in Chinese school children. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2007; 35(5):387-92. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2006.00342.x. View

10.

Holst A . A 3-year clinical evaluation of Ketac-Silver restorations in primary molars. Swed Dent J. 1996; 20(6):209-14. View

11.

Ho T, Smales R, Fang D . A 2-year clinical study of two glass ionomer cements used in the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1999; 27(3):195-201. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1999.tb02010.x. View

12.

Lo E, Luo Y, Fan M, Wei S . Clinical investigation of two glass-ionomer restoratives used with the atraumatic restorative treatment approach in China: two-years results. Caries Res. 2002; 35(6):458-63. DOI: 10.1159/000047490. View

13.

Monse-Schneider B, Heinrich-Weltzien R, Schug D, Sheiham A, Borutta A . Assessment of manual restorative treatment (MRT) with amalgam in high-caries Filipino children: results after 2 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003; 31(2):129-35. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0528.2003.00030.x. View

14.

Mandari G, Truin G, vant Hof M, Frencken J . Effectiveness of three minimal intervention approaches for managing dental caries: survival of restorations after 2 years. Caries Res. 2001; 35(2):90-4. DOI: 10.1159/000047438. View

15.

Palma-Dibb R, de Castro C, Ramos R, Chimello D, Chinelatti M . Bond strength of glass-ionomer cements to caries-affected dentin. J Adhes Dent. 2003; 5(1):57-62. View

16.

Frencken J, Makoni F, Sithole W . ART restorations and glass ionomer sealants in Zimbabwe: survival after 3 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1998; 26(6):372-81. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1998.tb01975.x. View

17.

Holmgren C, Lo E, Hu D, Wan H . ART restorations and sealants placed in Chinese school children--results after three years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2000; 28(4):314-20. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0528.2000.280410.x. View

18.

Guggenberger R, May R, Stefan K . New trends in glass-ionomer chemistry. Biomaterials. 1998; 19(6):479-83. DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(97)00127-0. View

19.

Ersin N, Candan U, Aykut A, Oncag O, Eronat C, Kose T . A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach: results at 24 months. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006; 137(11):1529-36. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0087. View

20.

Dulgergil C, Soyman M, Civelek A . Atraumatic restorative treatment with resin-modified glass ionomer material: short-term results of a pilot study. Med Princ Pract. 2005; 14(4):277-80. DOI: 10.1159/000085750. View