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

Clinical evaluation of two minimal interventional restorative approaches : 5-year follow-up

Objective: To compare the performance of two minimally invasive restorative treatment approaches for managing dental caries. Methods: A total of 50 pregnant women (second trimester of pregnancy), mean age 22±5.30 years, were treated by two previously trained operators. The treatment approaches tested were: chemo-mechanical (Carisolv-MediTeam, Sweden) and mechanical (Atraumatic Restorative Treatment -ART) methods. A parallel-group study design was used in which the two treatments were randomly placed in 50 matched pairs of permanent teeth. The treatments were performed in Public Health Centers located in suburban areas of Bauru city in Brazil. The restorative material used was high strength glass ionomer cement (Ketac Molar, 3M ESPE).The restorations were evaluated by 2 calibrated independent double-blind examiners according to ART criteria. The inter examiner kappa was 0.93. The data were analyzed using 95% confidence interval on the binomial distribution and Fisher Exact test. A difference was statistically significant if p<0.05. Results: In a 5-year follow-up, 34% of the restorations were evaluated. In the chemo-mechanical group 53% (CI=27-77%) of the restorations were considered as successful and in the mechanical group 60% (CI=33-83%). There was no statistically significant difference between the 5-year success rate for both groups (p=0.73). Conclusion: The two minimal interventional restorative approaches showed similar clinical performance after 5 years