ART class II restoration loss in primary molars: re-restoration or not?
- 69 Downloads
AIM: The purpose of this study was to find an answer as to what to do with Atraumatic Restorations (ART) failures: re-restore or leave the preparation further unfilled? STUDY DESIGN: Cross sectional study. METHODS: In 2006, 804 children in Kenya each had one proximal cavity treated using the ART approach. Out of the original group of 192 children, who had lost their restorations but still had the treated molars in situ, were selected for further study in 2008. The length of time that the restorations had been in situ was known while the colour, hardness and the extent of infected dentine was then evaluated and documented. STATISTICS: Analysis of the data obtained was conducted using SPSS 16.0. Chi Square tests were performed with the variables of hardness, colour and infected dentine, and a 5% confidence interval was used. The Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient was also calculated. RESULTS: The results showed that 66% of the molars that had lost restorations had hard dentine, 78% of the preparations showed dark dentine and 50.7% appeared to have no infected dentine. These percentages increased with the increase in the survival time of the restorations. CONCLUSIONS: It is not always necessary to re-restore primary molars after ART restoration loss. Further research is necessary to confirm these findings.
KeywordsART remineralisation Class II developing countries
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Axelsson P. An introduction to risk prediction and preventive dentistry. Quintes-sence Publishing Co Inc, Karlstad, Sweden. 2000.pp 77–97.Google Scholar
- Ersin NK, Candan U, Aykut A, et al. A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach. Results at 24 months. J Amer Dent Assoc, 2006 Vol. 137, November, 1529–1536.Google Scholar
- Frencken JE, Pilot T, Songpaisan Y, et al. Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART): Rationale, technique, en Development. Journal of Public Health Dent 1996; Vol. 56, No. 3, Special Issue.Google Scholar
- Frencken JE, Homgren CJ. Atraumatic Restorative Treatment for dental caries. STI book Bv, Nijmegen. 1999. pp 76–77.Google Scholar
- Frencken JE, van Amerongen WE in Fejerskov O, Kidd E. Dental Caries. Blackwell Munksgaard, Oxford. 2008. Chapter 23, pp 427–440.Google Scholar
- Penning Ch, Van Amerongen JP, De Kloet HJ, et al. Caries lesions (Carieslaesies), Prelum uitgevers, Houten, 2007. pp 323–347.Google Scholar
- Phantumvanit P, Songpaisan Y, Frencken JE, et al. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): Evaluation after 2 years. 1995.P.53 WCPD’95 Official Program.Google Scholar
- Rahimtoola S, van Amerongen WE. Comparison of two tooth saving preparation techniques for one surface cavities. J Dent Child 2002; 69:16–26.Google Scholar
- Santiago BM, Ventin DA, Primo LG, et al. Microhardness of dentine underlying ART restorations in primary molars: an in vivo pilot study. Br Dent J. 2005; 199 No. 2 July 23.Google Scholar
- Taifour D, Frencken JE, Beiruti N, et al. Effectiveness of the ART approach in a child population in Syria. (Doctoral thesis, December 16, 2002a) University of Njmegen.Google Scholar