Effectiveness of ART and traditional amalgam approach in restoring single-surface cavities in posterior teeth of permanent dentitions in school children after 6.3 years

• Published in: Community dentistry and oral epidemiology Vol. 35; no. 3; pp. 207 - 214
• Main Authors: Frencken, J. E., Van't Hof, M. A., Taifour, D., Al-Zaher, I.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.06.2007
• Subjects: amalgam; atraumatic restorative treatment; Bicuspid; Child; Children & youth; Clinical outcomes; Comparative studies; Dental Amalgam; Dental care; Dental caries; Dental Caries - prevention & control; Dental Caries - therapy; Dental Cavity Preparation - classification; Dental Cavity Preparation - methods; Dental Plaque Index; Dental Restoration, Permanent - methods; Dental Restoration, Permanent - statistics & numerical data; Dentistry; DMF Index; Follow-Up Studies; Glass Ionomer Cements; glass-ionomer; Health Education, Dental; Humans; Molar; permanent teeth; Recurrence; restorations; Survival Analysis; Syria; Syria
• ISSN: 0301-5661; 1600-0528
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2006.00322.x

–  Objectives:  The Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach was compared with the traditional amalgam (TA) approach in order to test their appropriateness to complement a preventive and educational school oral health programme in Syria. Methods:  Using a parallel group design, 370 and 311 grade 2 children were randomly assigned to the ART and the TA group respectively. Eight dentists placed 1117 single‐ and multiple‐surface restorations. A modified actuarial method was used to estimate survival curves. The jackknife method was applied to calculate the standard error in the cumulative survival percentages. Results:  A statistically significant difference in cumulative survival percentages between single‐surface non‐occlusal ART and comparable amalgam restorations was observed after 4.3, 5.3 and 6.3 years. The survival of single‐surface non‐occlusal ART posterior restorations (80.2 ± 4.9%) was statistically significantly higher than that of occlusal posterior ART restorations (64.8 ± 3.9%) at evaluation year 6.3. There was no statistically significant difference observed between survival percentages of large (55.8 ± 10%) and that of small (69.2 ± 4.6%) single‐surface posterior ART restorations after 6.3 years. There was an operator effect observed for single‐surface ART and comparable amalgam restorations. Secondary caries was observed in 2.3% of single‐surface ART restorations and in 3.7% of single‐surface amalgam restorations during the 6.3 year observation period. Conclusions:  The ART approach provided higher survival percentages for single‐surface restorations than the TA approach over 6.3 years and is therefore appropriate for use in school oral health programmes. Secondary caries was only a minor reason for ART restorations to fail. An operator effect was observed for both treatment approaches.