Impact of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) on the treatment profile in pilot government dental clinics in Tanzania

\ud The predominant mode of treatment in government dental clinics in Tanzania has been tooth extraction because the economy could not support the conventional restorative care which depends on expensive equipment, electricity and piped water systems. Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) was perceived as a suitable alternative. A 3.5-year study was designed to document the changes in the treatment profiles ascribed to the systematic introduction of ART in pilot government dental clinics. Dental practitioners who were working in 13 government dental clinics underwent a 7-day ART training. Treatment record data on teeth extracted and teeth restored by the conventional and ART approaches were collected from these clinics for the three study periods. The mean percentage of ART restorations to total treatment, ART restorations to total restorations, and total restorations to total treatments rendered were computed. Differences between variables were determined by ANOVA, t-test and Chi-square. The mean percentage of ART restorations to total treatment rendered was 0.4 (SE = 0.5) and 11.9 (SE = 1.1) during the baseline and second follow-up period respectively (ANOVA mixed model; P < 0.0001). The mean percentage of ART restorations to total restorations rendered at baseline and 2nd follow-up period was 8.4% and 88.9% respectively (ANOVA mixed model; P < 0.0001). The mean percentage of restorations to total treatment rendered at baseline and 2nd follow-up was 3.9% and 13.0%, respectively (ANOVA mixed model; P < 0.0001). Ninety-nine percent of patients were satisfied with ART restorations, 96.6% willing to receive ART restoration again in future, and 94.9% willing to recommend ART treatment to their close relatives. ART introduction in pilot government dental clinics raised the number of teeth saved by restorative care. Countrywide introduction of the ART approach in Tanzania is recommended\u

Absence of carious lesions at margins of glass-ionomer cement and amalgam restorations: An update of systematic review evidence

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This article aims to update the existing systematic review evidence elicited by Mickenautsch et al. up to 18 January 2008 (published in the European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry in 2009) and addressing the review question of whether, in the same dentition and same cavity class, glass-ionomer cement (GIC) restored cavities show less recurrent carious lesions on cavity margins than cavities restored with amalgam.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The systematic literature search was extended beyond the original search date and a further hand-search and reference check was done. The quality of accepted trials was assessed, using updated quality criteria, and the risk of bias was investigated in more depth than previously reported. In addition, the focus of quantitative synthesis was shifted to single datasets extracted from the accepted trials.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The database search (up to 10 August 2010) identified 1 new trial, in addition to the 9 included in the original systematic review, and 11 further trials were included after a hand-search and reference check. Of these 21 trials, 11 were excluded and 10 were accepted for data extraction and quality assessment. Thirteen dichotomous datasets of primary outcomes and 4 datasets with secondary outcomes were extracted. Meta-analysis and cumulative meta-analysis were used in combining clinically homogenous datasets. The overall results of the computed datasets suggest that GIC has a higher caries-preventive effect than amalgam for restorations in permanent teeth. No difference was found for restorations in the primary dentition.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This outcome is in agreement with the conclusions of the original systematic review. Although the findings of the trials identified in this update may be considered to be less affected by attrition- and publication bias, their risk of selection- and detection/performance bias is high. Thus, verification of the currently available results requires further high-quality randomised control trials.</p

Ten-year survival of ART restorations in permanent posterior teeth

This study evaluated the 10-year clinical performance of high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement placed in posterior permanent teeth by means of the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach. One operator placed 167 single- and 107 multiple-surface restorations in 43 high-risk caries pregnant women (mean decayed teeth = 9.8 ± 5.5). Examinations were performed at 1-, 2-, and 10-year intervals according to ART criteria. In the last evaluation, the US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria were also used. After 10 years, 129 restorations (47.1%) were evaluated and achieved a cumulative survival rate of 49.0% (SE 7.2%). The 10-year survival of single- and multiple-surface ART restorations assessed using the ART criteria were 65.2% (SE 7.3%) and 30.6% (SE 9.9%), respectively. This difference was significant (jackknife SE of difference; p < 0.05). Using the USPHS criteria, the 10-year survival of single- and multiple-surface ART restorations were 86.5% and 57.6%, respectively. The primary causes of failure were total loss (9.3%) and marginal defects (5.4%). The survival rates observed, especially for the single-surface restorations, confirm the potential of the ART approach for restoring and saving posterior permanent teeth

Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis

The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic investigation plus meta-analysis into survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations using high-viscosity glass ionomers and to compare the results with those from the 2005 ART meta-analysis. Until February 2010, four databases were searched. Two hundred four publications were found, and 66 reported on ART restorations or sealant survival. Based on five exclusion criteria, two independent reviewers selected the 29 publications that accounted for the meta-analysis. Confidence intervals (CI) and or standard errors were calculated and the heterogeneity variance of the survival rates was estimated. Location (school/clinic) was an independent variable. The survival rates of single-surface and multiple-surface ART restorations in primary teeth over the first 2 years were 93% (CI, 91–94%) and 62% (CI, 51–73%), respectively; for single-surface ART restorations in permanent teeth over the first 3 and 5 years it was 85% (CI, 77–91%) and 80% (CI, 76–83%), respectively and for multiple-surface ART restorations in permanent teeth over 1 year it was 86% (CI, 59–98%). The mean annual dentine lesion incidence rate, in pits and fissures previously sealed using ART, over the first 3 years was 1%. No location effect and no differences between the 2005 and 2010 survival rates of ART restorations and sealants were observed. The short-term survival rates of single-surface ART restorations in primary and permanent teeth, and the caries-preventive effect of ART sealants were high. Clinical relevance: ART can safely be used in single-surface cavities in both primary and permanent teeth. ART sealants have a high caries preventive effect