scholarly journals A comparative survival analysis of high viscosity glass ionomer restorations using conventional cavity preparation and atraumatic restorative treatment technique in primary molars: A randomized clinical trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 95
Author(s):  
Hunny Sharma ◽  
GY Yunus ◽  
AfreenBegum H. Itagi ◽  
Himanshu Srivastava
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Survival Analysis ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
High Viscosity ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ◽  
Treatment Technique ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Cavity Preparation ◽  
Restorative Treatment

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).

scholarly journals Survival rate of primary molar restorations is not influenced by hand mixed or encapsulated GIC: 24 months RCT

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodolfo de Carvalho Oliveira ◽  
Lucila Basto Camargo ◽  
Tatiane Fernandes Novaes ◽  
Laura Regina Antunes Pontes ◽  
Isabel Cristina Olegário ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Primary Molar ◽  
Restoration Failure ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Glass ionomer cements (GIC) have been considered the top option to restore primary teeth by dentists. The most common supply forms are hand mixed and encapsulated GIC. There is a lack of information about the impact of different GIC supply forms on restoration survival. Methods This randomized clinical trial compared the survival rate of occlusal and occlusoproximal restorations in primary molars using two glass ionomer cements versions: hand-mixed (H/M) and encapsulated (ENC) after 24 months. Children aged 3–10 years who presented dentin caries lesions in primary molars were selected at School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Brazil. They were randomly assigned to groups: H /M (Fuji IX®, GC Europe) or ENC (Equia Fill®, GC Europe). The occurrence of restoration failure was evaluated by two blinded and calibrated examiners. The analyses were performed in Stata 13 (StataCorp, USA). To evaluate the primary outcome (restoration survival), we  performed a survival analysis. Additionally an intention to treat (ITT) analysis were done at 24 months of follow-up. Cox Regression with shared frailty was performed to assess association between restoration failure and independent variables (α = 5%). Results A total of 324 restorations were performed in 145 children. The survival for H/M group was 58.2% and 60.1% for ENC, with no difference (p = 0.738). Occlusoproximal restorations had lower survival rate when compared to occlusal ones (HR = 3.83; p < 0.001). Conclusions The survival rate in primary molars is not influenced by the different supply forms of GIC. Also, occlusoproximal restorations present reduced performances when compared to occlusal cavities. Trial Registration This randomized clinical trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.Gov on 10/15/2014 under protocol (NCT 02274142).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document