scholarly journals Atraumatic restorative treatment and glass ionomer sealants in Tunisian children:survival after 3 years

2002 ◽  
Vol 8 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 315-323
Author(s):  
A. Abid ◽  
F. Chkir ◽  
K. Ben Salem ◽  
K. Argoubi ◽  
M. Sfar Gandoura
Keyword(s):  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Permanent Teeth ◽  
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Loss To Follow Up ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Surface Sealants ◽  
Initial Survey

We evaluated the survival rates of atraumatic restorative treatment restorations and of glass ionomer sealants after 3 years of usage in primary and permanent teeth in Tunisian children aged 3-15 years attending rural schools, and assessed the presence or absence of dental caries in the restored teeth. After an initial survey of 1949 children, 242 were selected and agreed to undergo treatment. The loss to follow-up after 3 years was about 40%. Of those evaluated, 45.73% of one-surface ART restorations in permanent teeth had survived, 54.96% of one-surface sealants in permanent teeth had survived and 27.85% of one-surface ART restorations in primary teeth had survived. Caries was found in only 19 teeth after 3 years.

Longevity and Cariostatic Effects of Everyday Conventional Glass-ionomer and Amalgam Restorations in Primary Teeth: Three-year Results

1997 ◽  
Vol 76 (7) ◽  
pp. 1387-1396 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Qvist ◽  
L. Laurberg ◽  
A. Poulsen ◽  
P.T. Teglers
Keyword(s):  
Survival Time ◽  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Dental Health ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Permanent Teeth ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Caries Progression ◽  
Amalgam Restorations

The aim of this study was to compare the longevity and cariostatic effects of everyday conventional glass-ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth. The materials consisted of 515 Ketac-Fil glass-ionomer restorations and 543 Dispersalloy amalgam restorations prepared in 666 children, from 3 to 13 years of age, by 14 dentists within the Danish Public Dental Health Service in the municipalities of Vaerlose and Hillerød. The restorations, of which 79% were of the Class II type, were in contact with 593 unrestored surfaces in adjacent primary and permanent teeth. After 3 years, 6% of the patients had dropped out of the study, and 33% of the teeth were exfoliated with the restoration in situ. A further 37% of the glass-ionomer and 18% of the amalgam restorations were recorded as failed (p < 0.001). The frequency of failures was highest for Class II glass-ionomer restorations, which showed a 50% median survival time of only 34½ months, because of many fractures, while the 75% survival time for Class II amalgam restorations just exceeded the actual 36 months (p < 0.001). Caries progression was most often recorded in surfaces adjacent to amalgam restorations, and 21% of these surfaces needed restorative treatment vs. 12% of the surfaces adjacent to glass-ionomer restorations (p < 0.01). The three-year results indicated that conventional glass ionomer is not an appropriate alternative to amalgam for all types of restorations in primary teeth. In particular, the short longevity of Class II glass-ionomer restorations could not be compensated for by the reduced caries progression and need for restorative therapy of adjacent surfaces.

scholarly journals Cost and Time Differences between Three Types of Restorations for Primary Teeth: Amalgam, Composite and Glass-Ionomer Cement.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanthao Thi Phan ◽  
John M. Powers ◽  
Franklin Garcia-Godoy ◽  
Timothy Brown ◽  
Lilliam Marie Pinzon
Keyword(s):  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Costly Treatment ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background: Early Childhood Caries is the most prevalent chronic disease among children in the United States. Three common approaches for treatment of dental caries in general population include: amalgam, composite, and glass ionomer. The purpose of this study was to measure the treatment cost differences for amalgam, composite, and atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations of primary teeth and evaluate possible factors that could influence the cost of treatment. Methods: This cross-sectional study randomly selected data of 120 restorations from a clinical observational study of the restoration of primary teeth in children aged 5 – 10 years old. The 120 selected restorations in primary teeth, half with two surfaces and half with three surfaces, were performed by two operators at the Asian Health Center and Centro American Resources Center in California. Data were analyzed using multivariable linear regression. Results: Performing ART was found to take 7.8 minutes less than amalgam (p<0.01) and 19.0 minutes less than composite. ART was found to be 6.4% (p=0.01) less costly than amalgam and 62.4% (p<0.01) less costly than composite. Conclusions: ART was found to be the least costly treatment compared to amalgam and composite restoration procedures. ART also required the shortest time during the clinical procedure. Trial Registration: UCSF CHR Number: H55840-32823-02

ART and Conventional Root Restorations in Elders after 12 Months

2006 ◽  
Vol 85 (10) ◽  
pp. 929-932 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.C.M. Lo ◽  
Y. Luo ◽  
H.P. Tan ◽  
J.E. Dyson ◽  
E.F. Corbet
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rates ◽  
High Strength ◽  
Root Surface ◽  
Conventional Technique ◽  
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Caries Lesions ◽  
Root Surface Caries

Successful use of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) in children has been reported, but little information is available regarding its use in older adults. The hypothesis of this study was that survival rates of root restorations placed by both ART and the conventional technique were similar. Root-surface caries lesions in 103 institutionalized elders in Hong Kong were treated randomly by either: (1) the conventional approach—caries removed by dental burs, and the cavity filled with light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer; or (2) the ART approach—caries removed by hand instruments, and the cavity filled with chemically cured high-strength glass ionomer. In total, 84 conventional and 78 ART restorations were placed. After 12 months, 63 conventional and 59 ART restorations were reviewed, and the respective 12-month survival rates were 91.7% and 87.0% (p > 0.05). It is concluded that the survival rates of both types of root restorations were high and similar.

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.

Survival of ART and Amalgam Restorations in Permanent Teeth of Children after 6.3 Years

2006 ◽  
Vol 85 (7) ◽  
pp. 622-626 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.E. Frencken ◽  
D. Taifour ◽  
M.A. van ’t Hof
Keyword(s):  
Traditional Approach ◽  
High Viscosity ◽  
Permanent Teeth ◽  
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Cumulative Survival ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Parallel Group Design ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Amalgam Restorations

The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference in the survival percentages of all restorations placed through the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach, with high-viscosity glass ionomer, and those produced through the traditional approach, with amalgam (TA), in the permanent dentitions of children after 6.3 years. Using a parallel group design, we randomly assigned a total of 370 children, aged 6 to 9 years, to the ART group and 311 children, also aged 6 to 9 years, to the TA group. Eight dentists placed a total of 1117 single- and multiple-surface restorations. The cumulative survival percentages for ART glass-ionomer restorations were statistically significantly higher than those of amalgam restorations at all time intervals except the first (p ≤ 0.044). After 6.3 years, the cumulative survival percentages of ART and amalgam restorations were 66.1% (SE = 3.1%) and 57.0% (SE = 3.3%), respectively. We concluded that the restorations produced with the ART approach, with high-viscosity glass ionomer, survived longer than those produced with the traditional approach, with amalgam, in the permanent teeth of young children.

Ceramic Veneers for Esthetic Restoration of Retained Primary Teeth: A 4-year Follow-up Case Report

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-142
Author(s):  
MS Bin-Shuwaish
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Group Function ◽  
Patient Dissatisfaction ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Clinical Description ◽  
Ceramic Restorations

SUMMARYRetained primary teeth in the smile zone can cause patient dissatisfaction, especially if associated with malposition of teeth. Orthodontic and prosthetic treatment options to treat the situation may not be accepted by some patients. Therefore, these patients tend to maintain their primary teeth and seek different esthetic options. Ceramic veneers may provide an esthetic treatment option to restore these teeth. However, the survival rates of ceramic restorations in such cases have not yet been established. This case report provides a step-by-step clinical description of the use of ceramic veneers for the restoration of retained primary canines and mild teeth malalignment, with a 4-year follow-up report, in a 28-year-old female patient. During restorative treatment, an effort was made to maintain the occlusion in group function to minimize stress and eliminate destructive forces on the retained primary teeth. After 4 years of function, the patient was still satisfied with the provided treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document