scholarly journals A field-trial of two restorative materials used with atraumatic restorative treatment in rural Turkey: 24-month results

2009 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 307-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ertugrul Ercan ◽  
Ç. Türksel Dülgergil ◽  
Mübin Soyman ◽  
Mehmet Dalli ◽  
Isil Yildirim
Keyword(s):  
Field Trial ◽  
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Materials Used

Selection of restorative materials for the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach: a review

2001 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 216-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hak-Kong Yip ◽  
Roger J. Smales ◽  
Hien C. Ngo ◽  
Franklin R. Tay ◽  
Frederick C.S. Chu
Keyword(s):  
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Selection Of

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 In vitro and in vivo evaluations of glass-ionomer cement containing chlorhexidine for Atraumatic Restorative Treatment

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 541-550 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristiane Duque ◽  
Kelly Limi Aida ◽  
Jesse Augusto Pereira ◽  
Gláucia Schuindt Teixeira ◽  
Angela Scarparo Caldo-Teixeira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Ionomer Cement

An in vitro Evaluation of Artificial Caries-like Lesions on Restored Overdenture Abutments

1988 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 582-584 ◽  
Author(s):  
P.P. Kambhu ◽  
R.L. Ettinger ◽  
J.S. Wefel
Keyword(s):  
Light Microscopy ◽  
Polarized Light ◽  
Polarized Light Microscopy ◽  
The Other ◽  
Type Ii ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Abutment Teeth ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Materials Used

An acidified dialyzed gelatin gel system was used to determine the caries resistance of a variety of restorative materials used to obturate the canal orifice of overdenture abutment teeth. The restorative materials used were Tytin, Tytin + Copalite, P30 + Scotchbond, Fuji Ionomer-Type II, and Miracle Mix. Polarized light microscopy and microradiography were used to examine the caries-like lesions adjacent to the restorations. The lesions formed in the Fuji Ionomer-Type II and Miracle Mix groups appeared arrested at the wall adjacent to the restoration, and did not penetrate apically down the wall as did those associated with the other restorative materials. The mean depths of lesions adjacent to Fuji Ionomer-Type II and Miracle Mix restorations were significantly less than those of Tytin, Tytin + Copalite, or P30 + Scotchbond.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document