Survival estimates of atraumatic restorative treatment Vs tr
Now open: Certificate Course in Management of Covid-19 by Govt. Of Gujarat and PlexusMDKnow more...Now open: Certificate Course in Management of Covid-19 by Govt. Of Gujarat and PlexusMDKnow more...
This study suggests that no significant differences in survival percentages between ART and traditionally-produced single-surface restorations in primary and permanent (pre)molars as well as multiple-surface restorations in primary molars were observed.

The hypothesis tested was that there is no significant difference between the survival estimates of atraumatic restorative treatment/high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (ART/HVGIC) restorations, in posterior primary and permanent teeth, and traditional amalgam and resin composite restorations.

The databases PubMed, DOAJ, LILACS, IndMed, Google Scholar, and CNKI were searched. Using inclusion and exclusion criteria led to 14 eligible randomized trials.

--No statistically significant difference was found between the weighted mean survival percentages of ART/HVGIC and traditional treatments in both single- and multiple-surface restorations in primary molars and in single-surface restorations in posterior permanent teeth at years 1, 2, 3, and 5.

--At years 4.3 and 6.3, the difference between the two treatments was statistically significant, favoring the ART/HVGIC restorations.

--No statistically significant difference was found between the weighted mean survival percentages of ART/HVGIC and traditional treatments in multiple-surface restorations in posterior permanent teeth.

Conclusively, the ART method using HVGICs can be considered as a replacement for traditional restorations in single- and multiple-surface cavities in primary molars, and in single-surface cavities in posterior permanent teeth, particularly for amalgam.

British Dental Journal
Source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-021-2701-0
Like
Comment
Share