Clinical evaluation of multiple-surface ART restorations: three-year follow-up
Objective: To evaluate the performance of multiple-surface restorations made with two different glass-ionomer cements (GICs) using the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) in permanent teeth. Material and methods: A total of 60 restorations were placed in schoolchildren (9-16 years of age) by two...
| Autores: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2013 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
| Repositorio: | Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/133632 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://dx.doi.org/10.14295/bds.2013.v16i1.872 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/133632 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Glass-ionomer cements Atraumatic restorative treatment Clinical trial Cimento de ionômero de vidro Tratamento restaurador atraumático Esquisa clínica |
| Sumario: | Objective: To evaluate the performance of multiple-surface restorations made with two different glass-ionomer cements (GICs) using the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) in permanent teeth. Material and methods: A total of 60 restorations were placed in schoolchildren (9-16 years of age) by two dentists using standard ART procedures. The restorations were randomly divided into two groups. Thirty cavities were filled with high-viscosity GIC (Ketac Molar-3M ESPE) and 30 cavities were filled with resin-modified GIC (Fuji VIII-GC Corp.). Two calibrated independent examiners carried out the evaluation according to ART criteria. Data were statistically analyzed using multiple logistic regression models to evaluate the variables associated with the success (GIC, operator, Class type). The 95% confidence intervals (CI) for success were based on the binomial distribution. A difference was statistically significant if p<0.05. Results:In a 3-year follow-up, 57 restorations were evaluated. In the Ketac Molar group, 3 restorations were not evaluated, 21 were considered successful and 6 unsuccessful. In the Fuji VIII group, 28 restorations were considered successful and 2 unsuccessful. The logistic regression model showed that the combination of the variables was only statistically significant in relation to survival of the ART restorations (p=0.036). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups taking each variable into account. The best performance included the combination: Fuji VIII, operator B and Class I involving two or more tooth surfaces. Conclusion: The clinical performance of the multiple-surface ART restorations of both materials was considered satisfactory with a high success rate after 3 years. |
|---|