scholarly journals Clinical evaluation of multisurface ART restorations

2005 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Francisca Gigo Cefaly ◽  
Terezinha de Jesus Esteves Barata ◽  
Celiane Mary Carneiro Tapety ◽  
Eduardo Bresciani ◽  
Maria Fidela de Lima Navarro
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Permanent Teeth ◽  
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ◽  
Treatment Technique ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Tooth Surfaces

The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of two different glass-ionomer cements: a high-density (Ketac Molar - ESPE) and a resin-modified cement (Fuji VIII - GC) using the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment technique to restore multisurface cavities in permanent teeth. A total of 60 ART restorations (30 with each material) were placed in schoolchildren (9-16 years of age) by two operators. After a period of 6 months, two independent examiners evaluated 59 restorations according to the criteria used in previous ART studies. Data were submitted to McNemar and Fischer tests. The success rate of the treatment was 98.3%. One restoration (Ketac Molar) was replaced by another material and was recorded as failure. The success rates of the restorations were 100% and 96.6% for Fuji VIII and Ketac Molar, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the restorations success between baseline and 6 months (p>0.05). In the same way, no significant differences were found between materials, cavity types or operators (p>0.05). The ART approach was highly appropriate and effective in restorations involving two or more tooth surfaces, after 6 months. The results showed a promising performance of the ART technique with both materials.

scholarly journals Surface roughness of glass ionomer cements indicated for atraumatic restorative treatment (ART)

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 106-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renata Cristiane da Silva ◽  
Angela Cristina Cilense Zuanon
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ◽  
Scanning Electron Microscopy Data ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Microscopy Data

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of four conventional chemically cured glass ionomer cements (Fuji IX, Ketac Molar, Vidrion R and Vitromolar) commonly used in atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) immediately after material preparation. Twenty specimens of each glass ionomer cement were fabricated and surface roughness was measured after material setting. The specimens were further examined under scanning electron microscopy. Data were analyzed statistically by Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney test at 5% significance level. Two-by-two comparisons showed statistically significant difference (p<0.05) between all materials, except for Ketac Molar and Vidrion R, which had statically similar results (p>0.05). Regarding their results of surface roughness, the materials can be presented in a crescent order, as follows: Ketac Molar < Vidrion R < Fuji IX < Vitromolar. In conclusion, from the tested glass ionomer cements, Fuji IX, Ketac Molar and Vidrion R presented acceptable surface roughness after setting reaction while Vitromolar showed remarkably higher surface roughness.

Effectiveness of Single-surface ART Restorations in the Permanent Dentition: A Meta-analysis

2004 ◽  
Vol 83 (2) ◽  
pp. 120-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.E. Frencken ◽  
M.A. van ’t Hof ◽  
W.E. van Amerongen ◽  
C.J. Holmgren
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Permanent Teeth ◽  
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
The Past ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Maximum Period ◽  
Amalgam Restorations ◽  
Late Group

Over the past few years, there has been an increase in the number of studies reporting on various aspects of the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach. Five randomized clinical trials in which ART restorations with glass ionomers were compared with amalgam restorations in permanent teeth for a maximum period of 3 yrs constituted the database. This meta-analysis divided the publications into ‘early’ (1987–1992) and ‘late’ (1995-) studies on the basis of improvements in the approach. The analysis showed that, in the ‘early’ studies, single-surface amalgam restorations survived statistically significantly longer than comparable ART restorations after 1, 2, and 3 yrs. This trend did not continue into the late group of studies; no statistically significant difference between the 2 types of restorations was found. Based on the available data, it appears that there is no difference in survival results between single-surface ART restorations and amalgam restorations in permanent teeth over the first 3 yrs.

scholarly journals Compressive and diametral tensile strength of glass ionomer cements

2004 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 344-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo Bresciani ◽  
Terezinha de Jesus Esteves Barata ◽  
Ticiane Cestari Fagundes ◽  
Akimi Adachi ◽  
Marina Martins Terrin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tensile Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Diametral Tensile Strength

The aim of this study was to compare, in different periods of time, the compressive and diametral tensile strength of a traditional high viscous glass ionomer cement: Fuji IX (GC Corporation), with two new Brazilian GIC's: Vitro-Molar (DFL) and Bioglass R (Biodinamica), all indicated for the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) technique. Fifteen disk specimens (6.0mm diameter x 3.0mm height) for the diametral tensile strength (DTS) test and fifteen cylindrical specimens (6.0mm diameter x 12.0mm height) for the compressive strength (CS) test were made of each GIC. Specimens were stored in deionized water at 37º C and 100% of humidity in a stove until testing. Five specimens of each GIC were submitted to CS and DTS test in each period, namely 1 hour, 24 hours and 7 days. The specimens were tested in a testing machine (Emic) at a crosshead speed of 1.0mm/min for CS and 0.5mm/min for the DTS test until failure occurred. The data were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (alpha=0.05). The mean CS values ranged from 42.03 to 155.47MPa and means DTS from 5.54 to 13.72 MPa, with test periods from 1h to 7 days. The CS and DTS tests showed no statistically significant difference between Fuji IX and Vitro Molar, except for CS test at 1-hour period. Bioglass R had lowest mean value for CS of the cements tested. In DTS test Bioglass R presented no statistically significant differences when compared with all others tested GICs at 1-hour period and Bioglass R presented no difference at 24-hour and 7-day periods when compared to Vitro-Molar. Further studies to investigate other physical properties such as fracture toughness and wear resistance, as well as chemical composition and biocompatibility, are now needed to better understand the properties of these new Brazilian GIC's.

scholarly journals Atraumatic Restorative Treatment and Interim Therapeutic Restoration: A Review of the Literature

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afnan Saber ◽  
Azza El-Housseiny ◽  
Najlaa Alamoudi
Keyword(s):  
Dental Treatment ◽  
High Viscosity ◽  
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Traditional Treatment ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Mechanical Approach ◽  
Better Than ◽  
The Ideal

This review discusses the techniques and uses of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and interim therapeutic restoration (ITR) and states the differences between these two approaches. ART and ITR are similar approaches and are performed using the same material, but they differ in the purpose of their use. ART is used in cases when there are obstacles to reaching dental care units and has been proven to have high success rates in primary and permanent dentitions. ITR is used as a temporary restoration that will be replaced with a more definitive one. ITR is used in cases when the ideal dental treatment cannot be performed. Conventional glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) restorative cement (GIC) is the material of choice that has been used for ART and ITR. This is because of its fluoride release properties, including its ability to bond to enamel and dentine, its pulpal biocompatibility, and its ease of manipulation. High-viscosity glass ionomer performed better than low and medium-viscosity glass ionomer in ART. Combining GIC with conditioner, as well as the use of a chemo-mechanical approach, improved the success rate of ART. Both ATR and ITR are acceptable strategies, with success rates comparable to the traditional treatment methods.

Effect of Mixing Process on Microleakage of Glass Ionomer Cements Used in Atraumatic Restorative Treatment on Primary Molars

2007 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 251-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernanda de Morais Ferreira ◽  
Miriam Pimenta Parreira do Vale ◽  
Wellington Corrêa Jansen ◽  
Saul Martins Paiva ◽  
Isabela Almeida Pordeus
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Mixing Process ◽  
Mechanical Mixing ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Dye Penetration

Aiming to assess the effect of mixing process on microleakage, 40 primary molars were filled with encapsulated glass ionomer cements (GICs) (Vidrion,RCaps and Fuji,IXGPFAST) or with GICs stored in bottles (Vidrion,R and Fuji,IX). Dye penetration was assessed using scores. Encapsulation and mechanical mixing have reduced significantly marginal microleakage levels in class II restorations performed with conventional GICs if compared to the values obtained by their bottled correspondents (p=0,000).

Efficacy of GC Gold Label 9 and GC Miracle Mix® Restorations using Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) in Rural Settings: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 148-153
Author(s):  
Valerie Gloria D’Costa ◽  
Deepak Kumar Singhal ◽  
Shashidhar Acharya
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
High Strength ◽  
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Rural Settings

Objectives: This study compared the longevity of high strength posterior glass ionomer and metal-reinforced glass ionomer using ART in rural settings within an 18-month observation period. Study Design: A nonblinded parallel design randomized controlled trial was conducted among children who attended dental outreach programs in a rural area of Southern India. Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) was performed in 92 permanent posterior teeth with either high strength posterior glass ionomer or metal-reinforced glass ionomer restorations. The allocation ratio was 1:1. Restorations were evaluated at 1, 6, 12 and 18 months after placement. Results: The success rate of metal-reinforced glass ionomer restorations was 100%, 95.4%, 90.4% and 87.2% as compared to high strength posterior glass ionomer whose success rates were 100%, 93%, 85% and 61.8% at the four follow ups respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between the success rate of the two materials at the end of 18 months with the metal-reinforced glass ionomer restorations having a higher success rate (p=0.015). Conclusions : Although the clinical performance of both materials were largely similar, the metal-reinforced glass ionomer restorations had a higher success rate than the conventional GIC at the end of 18 months of follow-up.

Antibacterial activity of four glass ionomer cements used in atraumatic restorative treatment

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (9) ◽  
pp. 1859-1862 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renata Cristiane da Silva ◽  
Angela Cristina Cilense Zuanon ◽  
Denise Madalena Palomari Spolidorio ◽  
Juliana Alvares Duarte Bonini Campos
Keyword(s):  
Antibacterial Activity ◽  
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Treatment
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document