Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 136–139 | Cite as

Influence of different isolation methods on the survival of proximal ART restorations in primary molars after two years

  • A. M. KemoliEmail author
  • W. E. van Amerongen
  • G. N. Opinya
Short Communication

Abstract

AIM: This was to evaluate the influence of two methods of tooth-isolation on the survival rate of proximal ART restorations in the primary molars. METHODS: The study was conducted in two rural divisions in Kenya, with 7 operators randomly paired to a group of 8 assistants. A total of 804 children each had one proximal cavity in a primary molar restored using the ART approach. During restorations 2 isolation methods, rubber dam or cotton wool rolls, and 3 brands of glass ionomer cements were used by the operators. The restorations were then followed for a period of 2 years. STATISTICS: SPSS 14.0 was used to analyse and relate the data obtained to the method of isolation used. RESULTS: After 2 years 30.8% of the ART restorations had survived. Higher survival rates of the restorations were obtained when using rubber dam irrespective of the GIC material or the operator. CONCLUSION: Generally the survival rate of the proximal restorations in the present study was very low, but the use of rubber dam resulted in a higher survival rate of the restorations.

Key words

Proximal cavities primary molars atraumatic restorative treatment isolation method survivalrate 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barghi N, Knight GT, Berry TG. Comparing two methods of moisture control and composite bonding to enamel: A clinical study. Oper Dent 1991;16:130–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Cohen A Coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological measurement 1960; 20(1):37–46).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Frencken JE, Holmgren CJ. Atraumatic restorative treatment for dental caries, 1999, ISBN 90 804110 27.Google Scholar
  4. Frencken JE, Holmgren C, Mikx F. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) for tooth decay: a global initiative 1998–2000.Google Scholar
  5. Compact Cassette. Grossman ES, Mackenautsch S. Microscopic observations of ART excavated cavities and restorations. SADJ, 2002;57:359–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Honkala E, Behbehani J, Ibricevic H, Kerosuo E, Al-Jame G. Comparable survival rate of class I ART in primary dentition (GIC and Amalgam) in Beirut after 2 years of follow-up. Int J Paediatr Dent 2003;13(3):172–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kemoli AM, van Amerongen WE, Opinya G. Influence of the experience of operator and assistant on the survival rate of proximal ART restorations: two-year results. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent, 2009;10(4):227–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Knight GT, Berry TG, Barghi N et al. Effects of the two methods of moisture control on marginal microleakage between resin composite and etched enamel: a clinical study. Inter J Prosthodont 1993;6:475–79.Google Scholar
  9. Raskin A, Setcos JC, Vreven J, Wilson NHF. Influence of the isolation method on the 10-year clinical behaviour of posterior resin composite restorations. Clinical Oral Invest 2000; 4(3):148–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Roeleveld AC, van Amerongen WE, Mandari GJ. Influence of residual caries and cervical gaps on the survival rate of class II glass ionomer restorations. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2006; 7(2):85:91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Smales RJ. Effect of rubber dam isolation on restoration deterioration. Amer J Dent1992;5:277–279.Google Scholar
  12. Sofar JA, Davis RD, Overton JD, Effect of saliva contamination on the bond of dentine resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Oper Dent 1999;24:351–57.Google Scholar
  13. Taifour D, Frencken JE, Beiruti N, van’t Hof MA, Truin GJ. Effectiveness of glass ionomer (ART) and amalgam restorations in the deciduous dentition: results after 3 years. Caries res 2002;36(6):437–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tandon S. Textbook of Paedodontics. Paras Medical Publishers, India, 1st Ed 2001; pg 283–312.Google Scholar
  15. van der Hoef N, van Amerongen WE. Influence of local anaesthetic on the quality of class II glass ionomer restorations. Inter J Paediatr Dent 2007;17(4):239–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. van Gemert-Schriks MCM, van Amerongen WE, ten Cate JM, Aartman IHA. Three-year survival of single- and two-surface ART restorations in a high-caries child population. Clin Oral Invest 2007;11(4):37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Yu C, Gao XJ, Deng DM, Yip HK, Smales RJ. Survival of glass ionomer restorations placed in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity preparations: 2-year results. Int Dent J 2004;54(1):42–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. M. Kemoli
    • 1
    Email author
  • W. E. van Amerongen
    • 2
  • G. N. Opinya
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Paediatric dentistry, Faculty of DentistryUniversity of NairobiNairobiKenya
  2. 2.Dept. of Paediatric DentistryUniversity of Amsterdam, ACTAAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations