title: The 3.5-year survival rates of primary molars treated according to three treatment protocols: a controlled clinical trial Is high-viscosity glass-ionomer-cement a successor to amalgam for treating primary molars? Ketac Molar Versus Dyract Class II restorations in primary molars: twelve month clinical results. Cost-effectiveness of ART restorations in elderly adults: a randomized clinical trial. The effect of GIC-brand on the survival rate of proximal-ART restorations. Effectiveness of Glass-Ionomer (ART) and Amalgam Restorations in the Deciduous Dentition: Results after 3 Years A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach: results at 24 months. The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach to restoring primary teeth in a standard dental clinic. Amalgam and ART restorations in children: a controlled clinical trial
abstract: Objectives This study aim ed to test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the survival rates of molars treated according to the conventional restorative treatment ( CRT ) using amalgam , atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) using high-viscosity glass ionomer , and ultraconservative treatment ( UCT ) protocol after 3.5 years . Material s and methods Cavitated primary molars were treated according to CRT , ART , and UCT ( small cavities were restored with ART and medium/large cavities were daily cleaned with toothpaste/toothbrush under supervision ) . Molar extraction s result ing from toothache , sepsis , or pulp exposure were failures . The Kaplan – Meier method was used to estimate the survival curves . Results The numbers of treated teeth , among the 302 6–7-year-old children , were 341 ( CRT ) , 244 ( ART ) , and 281 ( for UCT group : 109 small ART , 166 open cavities , and 6 combinations ) . Protocol groups were similar at baseline regarding gender and mean decayed missing filled tooth score , but not regarding age and type of surface . The numbers of molars extracted were 22 ( CRT ) , 16 ( ART ) , and 26 ( UCT ) . Fistulae were most often recorded . After 3.5 years , the cumulative survival rate ± st and ard error for all molars treated was 90.9 ± 2.0 % with CRT , 90.4 ± 2.4 % with ART , and 88.6 ± 1.9 % with UCT ( p = 0.13 ) . Only a type of surface effect was observed over the 3.5-year period : survival rates for molars were higher for single- than for multiple-surface cavities . Conclusion There was no difference in the cumulative survival rates of primary molars treated according to the CRT , ART , and UCT protocol s over a 3.5-year period . Clinical relevance Keeping cavities in primary molars biofilm-free might be another treatment option alongside restoring such cavities through conventional and ART protocol OBJECTIVES To assess and compare the cumulative survival rate of amalgam and atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) restorations in primary molars over 3 years . METHODS 280 children aged 6 - 7 years old were enrolled in a cluster r and omized controlled clinical trial using a parallel group design covering two treatment groups : conventional restorative treatment with amalgam ( CRT ) and atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) using a high-viscosity glass-ionomer ( HVGIC ) Ketac Molar Easymix . Three pedodontists placed 750 restorations ( 364 amalgam and 386 ART in 126 and 154 children , respectively ) which were evaluated at 0.5 , 1 , 2 and 3 years . The proportional hazard rate regression model with frailty correction , ANOVA and Wald tests , and the Jackknife procedure were applied in analysing the data . RESULTS The cumulative survival rates over 3 years for all , single- and multiple-surface CRT/amalgam restorations ( 72.6 % , 93.4 % , 64.7 % , respectively ) were no different from those of comparable ART/HVGIC restorations ( 66.8 % ; 90.1 % and 56.4 % , respectively ) ( p=0.10 ) . Single-surface restorations had higher survival rates than multiple-surface restorations for the both treatment procedures ( p<0.0001 ) . A higher proportion of restorations failed because of mechanical reasons ( 94.8 % ) than of secondary caries ( 5.2 % ) . No difference in reasons for restoration failures between all types of amalgam and ART/HVGIC restorations were observed ( p=0.24 ) . SIGNIFICANCE The high-viscosity glass-ionomer used in this study in conjunction with the ART is a viable option for restoring carious dentin lesions in single surfaces in vital primary molars The aim of the present clinical study was an in vivo evaluation of an improved conventional glass ionomer cement Ketac Molar ( ESPE ) , compared to a polyacid modified composite resin , Dyract ( Dentsply/De Trey ) , used in primary molars . Fifty-three Ketac Molar and fifty-two Dyract restorations were placed in box-only preparations in primary molars . The application time for the chemically cured Ketac Molar , was longer compared to the light-cured Dyract . In comparing the material s , no differences were found , comparing both material s regarding secondary caries , marginal adaptation , wear and fracture toughness . One case of recurrent caries adjacent to a Ketac Molar restoration and two cases in the Dyract group were reported . Two Ketac Molar restorations and one Dyract showed bulk fracture at the time of evaluation . At the twelve-month evaluation , no difference between the investigated material s was registered , which indicates that Ketac Molar can be used as a proximal restoration in the primary dentition . It should be emphasized , however , that one-year data should not be extrapolated to indicate the long-term success of restorations BACKGROUND As the world population ages , the requirement for cost-effective methods of treating chronic disease conditions increases . In terms of oral health , there is a rapidly increasing number of dentate elderly with a high burden of maintenance . Population surveys indicate that older individuals are keeping their teeth for longer and are a higher caries risk group . Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ( ART ) could be suitable for patients in nursing homes or house-bound elderly , but very little research has been done on its use in adults . OBJECTIVES To compare the cost-effectiveness of ART  and a conventional technique ( CT )  for restoring carious lesions as part of a preventive and restorative programme for older adults . METHODS In this r and omized clinical trial , 82 patients with carious lesions were r and omly allocated to receive either ART or conventional restorations .  Treatment costs were measured based on treatment time , material s and labour . For the ART group , the cost of care provided by a dentist was also compared to the cost of having a hygienist to provide treatment . Effectiveness was measured using percentage of restorations that survived after a year . RESULTS Eighty-two patients received 260 restorations , that is , 128 ART and 132 conventional restorations . 91.1 % of the restorations were on one surface only . After a year , 252 restorations were assessed in 80 patients .  The average cost for ART and conventional restorations  was € 16.86 and € 28.71 respectively ; the restoration survival percentages were 91.1 % and 97.7 % , respectively . This result ed in a cost-effectiveness ratio of 0.18 ( ART ) and 0.29 ( CT ) . When the cost of a hygienist to provide ART was inserted in the analysis , the result ing ratio was 0.14 . CONCLUSIONS Atraumatic restorative treatment was found to be a more cost-effective alternative to treat older adults after 1 year , compared to conventional restorations , especially in out of surgery facilities and using alternative workforce such as hygienists . Atraumatic restorative treatment can be a useful tool to provide dental care for frail and fearful individuals who might not access dental treatment routinely BACKGROUND Laboratory studies show diverse behaviour of different br and s of glass-ionomer cements  ( GIC ) . AIM This study investigated the clinical performance [ survival rate ( SR ) ] of three GIC br and s applied to proximal atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) restorations . Additionally , the SR of the tooth was evaluated . DESIGN Proximal cavities of 262 primary molars were restored . The patients had been r and omly allocated to two operators and three GIC br and s :  Fuji IX , Hi-Dense , and Maxxion R. Restorations were evaluated after 1 , 6 , 12 , 18 , 24 , 30 , and 36 months . Failed restorations were , if possible , repaired or replaced . Linear regression analyses were used to evaluate the effect of GIC br and , operator , and surface of restoration . Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank test were performed for both restoration survival and tooth survival ( α = 5 % ) . RESULTS After 3 years , 82.4 % of the restorations were evaluated . The SR of the restorations was 24.4 % , and there was no difference among GIC br and s ( log-rank test , P = 0.6 ) . In the first 18 months , a significant operator effect and significantly higher failures in distal surfaces were found . The SR of the tooth was 81.7 % . CONCLUSIONS The SR of proximal ART restorations was relatively low when compared with the SR of the tooth . There are no differences in the performance among the GIC br and s used in the study This study compared the survival of restorations produced through the atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) approach using glass-ionomer with those produced through the traditional approach using amalgam ( MTA ) in deciduous dentitions over a period of 3 years . Using a parallel group design , 835 grade 1 children , aged 6–7 years , participated . A total of 482 children were treated through the ART and 353 children through the MTA approach .  Eight dentists produced a total of 1,891 single- and multiple-surface restorations . After 3 years , 22.1 % of the restorations were lost for evaluation . There was a statistically significant difference in the combined survival of all single- and multiple-surface restorations between the two approaches in favour of the ART approach ( p = 0.04 ) . The study revealed a 3-year cumulative survival percentage of single-surface ART and MTA restorations of 86.1 and 79.6 % , respectively . The difference was statistically significant ( p = 0.03 ) . The main reasons for both single-surface ART and MTA restorations to fail was ‘ restoration missing ’ followed by ‘ gross marginal defect ’ . The 3-year cumulative survival percentages of multiple-surface ART and MTA restorations were 48.7 and 42.9 % , respectively . The difference was not statistically significant ( p > 0.05 ) . The 3-year survival percentages of single- and multiple- surface ART and MTA restorations varied widely amongst the 8 operators with an operator effect ( p = 0.001 ) for multiple-surface MTA restorations . It can be concluded that the ART approach using glass-ionomer yielded better results in treating dentinal lesions in deciduous teeth than did the traditional approach using amalgam after 3 years . It is recommended to select the ART approach to complement the other activities of the school oral health programme BACKGROUND The authors evaluated the 24-month performance of a packable resin-based composite/dentin bonding system and a high-viscosity glass ionomer cement ( GIC ) in restorations placed in primary molars with the atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART )  approach . METHODS Three dentists placed 419 restorations in 219 children aged 6 through 10 years who had bilateral matched pairs of carious posterior Class I and II primary teeth . They used a split-mouth design to place the two material s , which were assigned r and omly to contralateral sides . The authors evaluated the restorations according to U.S. Public Health Service Ryge criteria . RESULTS After 24 months , 96.7 percent of the Class I GIC restorations and 91 percent of the resin-based composite restorations survived , while the success rates for the Class II restorations were 76.1 percent and 82 percent for the GIC and resin-based composite restorations , respectively . The survival rate of the Class II resin-based composite restorations was 5.9 percent higher than that of the GIC restorations at the 24-month evaluation , but this difference was not statistically significant . However , the study results showed a statistically significant difference in survival rates between Class I and II restorations for both material s. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPLICATION S The two-year clinical performance of both material s was satisfactory for the restoration of Class I and II primary molars using the ART approach OBJECTIVES The aims of this study are to assess the feasibility of the  Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ( ART ) approach in primary teeth and to compare the ART approach with traditional amalgam restorations in primary molars . METHODS This study was conducted in a paediatric dentistry clinic in Kuwait between April 1999 and December 2001 . The ART and amalgam restorations were placed r and omly on comparable pairs of primary molars , if available . In addition , the ART approach was used for other primary teeth that had no pulpal involvement and no perceived pain before treatment . The restorations were assessed by both the ART evaluation criteria and USPHS criteria in August-September 2000 and in August-December 2001 . The mean follow-up period for the restorations was 8.3 months in the first assessment ( 2000 ) and 22 months in the second assessment ( 2001 ) . The assessment was possible for 35 children ( mean age = 5.7 years ) , 18 of whom had comparable pairs ( n = 35 pairs ) of restorations in their primary molars . In addition , 48 other ART restorations  were assessed in 2000 and 42 in 2001 . RESULTS In a 2-year follow-up , 89.6 % of all ART restorations were considered successful . The failure rate of the comparable pairs of ART and amalgam restorations was 5.7 % . There was no significant difference in success rate between ART and amalgam techniques . CONCLUSIONS Based on a 2-year follow-up evaluation , the class I ART restorations seemed to have a high success rate , indicating the appropriateness of the ART approach in primary teeth Objectives The aims of this study were to compare 2-year cumulative survival rates of  amalgam and atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) restorations in primary molars and to investigate the determinants of the survival rate of restorations . Material s and methods A controlled clinical trial using a parallel group design was carried out on 258 children aged 6–7 years old , allocated to two treatment groups : conventional restorative treatment using amalgam and ART using high-viscosity glass ionomer . A total of 364 amalgam restorations and 386 ART restorations were placed by three pedodontists in 126 and 158 children , respectively , and were evaluated after 0.5 , 1 , and 2 years . Restorations were placed in vital primary molars with neither pain nor signs of pulp involvement . The survival analysis was conducted using the proportional hazard rate regression model with frailty correction . Results The 2-year cumulative survival rates for all amalgam ( 77.3 % ) and ART ( 73.5 % ) restorations were not statistically significantly different , but there was an effect of “ type of surface ” ( single/multiple ) and “ cavity filling time ” on the survival rates . Both amalgam and ART single-surface restorations had higher survival rates than multiple-surface restorations of the same material . Secondary caries was responsible for 36 and 38 % of failures in amalgam and ART restorations , respectively . Mean time for restoring all type of cavities with amalgam and ART restorations was 13.6 and 13.7 min , respectively . Conclusions Amalgam and ART restorations presented similar survival rates over a 2-year period for all , single-surface , and multiple-surface restorations . Clinical relevance In the cause of finding alternatives to amalgam , ART restorations using high-viscosity glass ionomer might be a suitable option for managing cavitated dentine carious lesions in vital primary molars
target: CONCLUSION ART restorations have similar survival rate compared to conventional treatment and can be considered an option to restore occlusoproximal cavities in primary molars
background: BACKGROUND A previous systematic review showed that atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) can be an option to restore the occlusoproximal cavities in primary teeth ; however , few studies fulfilled the criteria of inclusion to generate a high level of evidence .
  AIM To up date the existing systematic review and address questions regarding survival rate of ART restorations compared to the conventional approach in occlusoproximal cavities in primary molars .