Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 22, Issue 8, pp 2703–2725 | Cite as

Survival percentages of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations and sealants in posterior teeth: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

  • R. G. de Amorim
  • J. E. Frencken
  • D. P. Raggio
  • X. Chen
  • X. Hu
  • S. C. Leal
Review

Abstract

Objective

The aim of the present study is to update the results of two previous meta-analyses, published in 2006 and 2012, on the survival percentages of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations and ART sealants. The current meta-analysis includes Chinese publications not investigated before.

Materials and methods

Until February 2017, six databases were interrogated (two English, one Portuguese, one Spanish and two Chinese). Using six exclusion criteria, a group of six independent reviewers selected 43 publications from a total of 1958 potentially relevant studies retrieved. Confidence intervals and/or standard errors were calculated and the heterogeneity variance of the survival rates was estimated.

Results

The survival percentages and standard errors of single-surface and multiple-surface ART restorations in primary posterior teeth over the first 2 years were 94.3% (± 1.5) and 65.4% (± 3.9), respectively; for single-surface ART restorations in permanent posterior teeth over the first 3 years, they were 87.1% (± 3.2); and for multiple-surface ART restorations in permanent posterior teeth over the first 5 years, they were 77% (± 9.0). The mean annual dentine-carious-lesion-failure percentages in previously sealed pits and fissures using ART sealants in permanent posterior teeth over the first 3 and 5 years were 0.9 and 1.9%, respectively.

Conclusions

ART single-surface restorations presented high survival percentages in both primary and permanent posterior teeth, whilst ART multiple-surface restorations presented lower survival percentages. ART sealants presented a high-caries-preventive effect.

Clinical relevance

ART is an effective evidence-based option for treating and preventing carious lesions in primary and permanent posterior teeth.

Keywords

Sealant Restoration Atraumatic restorative treatment Survival Meta-analysis Systematic review 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the authors of the studies that made up the database for the current meta-analysis. Special thanks go to Dr. Ewald Bronkhorst for skillful analysis of the data.

Funding

The work was partially supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development from the Brazilian Government, under grants 309521/2015-7 and 306852/2016-0.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

RG de Amorim declares that he has no conflict of interest. JE Frencken is the originator of the ART approach and as such could be considered to have a conflict of interest. DP Raggio has received research grant from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development from the Brazilian Government (grant number 309521/2015-7). X Chen declares that she has no conflict of interest. X Hu declares that she has no conflict of interest. SC Leal has received research grant from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development from the Brazilian Government (grant number 306852/2016-0).

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Supplementary material

784_2018_2625_MOESM1_ESM.doc (62 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 61 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Frencken JE, Leal SC, Navarro MF (2012) Twenty-five-year atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach: a comprehensive overview. Clin Oral Investig 16:1337–1346PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van’t Hof MA, Frencken JE, van Palenstein Helderman WV, Holmgren CJ (2006) The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach for managing dental caries: a meta analysis. Int Dent J 56:345–351Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Amorim RG, Leal SC, Frencken JE (2012) Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 16:429–441Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Innes NPT, Frencken JE, Bjorndal L, Maltz M, Manton DJ, Ricketts D et al (2016) Managing carious lesions: consensus recommendations on terminology. Adv Dent Res 28:49–57Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schwendicke F, Frencken JE, Bjorndal L, Maltz M, Manton DJ, Ricketts D et al (2016) Managing carious lesions: consensus recommendations on carious tissue removal. Adv Dent Res 28:58–67Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holmgren CJ, Roux D, Doméjean S (2013) Minimal intervention dentistry: part 5. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART)—a minimum intervention and minimally invasive approach for the management of dental caries. Br Dent J 214:11–18Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frencken JE, Peters MC, Manton DJ, Leal SC, Gordan VV, Eden E (2012) Minimal intervention dentistry for managing dental caries—a review: report of a FDI task group. Int Dent J 62:223–243PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rahimtoola S, van Amerongen E, Maher R, Groen H (2000) Pain related to different ways of minimal intervention in the treatment of small caries lesions. ASDC J Dent Child 67:123–127 83Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mickenautsch S, Frencken JE, van’t HM (2007) Atraumatic restorative treatment and dental anxiety in outpatients attending public oral health clinics in South Africa. J Public Health Dent 67:179–184Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Menezes Abreu DM, Leal SC, Frencken JE (2009) Self-report of pain in children treated according to the atraumatic restorative treatment and the conventional restorative treatment—a pilot study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 34:151–155Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    da Mata C, Allen PF, McKenna G, Cronin M, O’Mahony D, Woods N (2015) Two-year survival of ART restorations placed in elderly patients: a randomised controlled clinical trial. J Dent 43:405–411Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Molina GF, Faulks D, Mazzola I, Cabral RJ, Mulder J, Frencken JE (2018) Three-year survival of ART high-viscosity glass-ionomer and resin composite restorations in people with disability. Clin Oral Investig 22:461–467Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Souza EM, Cefaly DF, Terada RS, Rodrigues CC, De Lima Navarro MF (2003) Clinical evaluation of the ART technique using high density and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Oral Health Prev Dent 1:201–207Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mallow PK, Durward CS, Klaipo M (1998) Restoration of permanent teeth in young rural children in Cambodia using the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique and Fuji II glass ionomer cement. Int J Paediatr Dent 8:35–40Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang L, Lopes LG, Bresciani E, Lauris JR, Mondelli RF, De Lima Navarro MF (2004) Evaluation of class I ART restorations in Brazilian schoolchildren; three-year results. Spec Care Dent 24:28–33Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van den Dungen GM, Huddleston Slater AE, Van Amerongen WE (2004) ART of conventioneel? Onderzoeksresultaten van proximale restauraties in tijdelijke molaren. Ned Tijdschr Tandheelk 111:345–349Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Motsei SM, Kroon J, Holtshousen WS (2001) Implementation of the ART approach in South Africa: an activity report. S Afr Dent J 56:327–329Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Abid A, Chkir F, Ben Salem K, Argoubi K, Sfar-Gandoura M (2002) Atraumatic restorative treatment and glass ionomer sealants in Tunisian children: survival after 3 years. East Meditter Health J 8:315–323Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holmgren CJ, Lo ECM, Hu DY, Wan HC (2000) ART restorations and sealants placed in Chinese school children—results after three years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 28:314–320Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Frencken JE, Songpaisan Y, Phantumvanit P, Pilot T (1994) Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique: evaluation after one year. Int Dent J 44:460–464Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith AJE, Chimimba PD, Kalf-Scholte S, Bouma J (1990) Clinical pilot study on new dental filling materials and preparation procedures in developing countries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 18:309–312Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kalf-Scholte SM, Van Amerongen WE, Smith AJE, Van Haastrecht HJA (2003) Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): a three-year clinical study in Malawi—comparison of conventional amalgam and ART restorations. J Public Health Dent 63:99–103Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Phantumvanit P, Songpaisan Y, Pilot T, Frencken JE (1996) Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART). Survival of one-surface restorations in the permanent dentition. J Public Health Dent 56:141–145Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mandari GJ, Truin GJ, Van ‘T Hof MA, Frencken JE (2001) Effectiveness of three minimal intervention approaches for managing dental caries: survival of restorations after 2 years. Caries Res 35:90–94Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mandari GJ, Frencken JE, Van ‘T Hof MA (2003) Six-year success rates of occlusal amalgam and glass-ionomer restorations placed using three minimal intervention approaches. Caries Res 37:246–253Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Frencken JE, Makoni F, Sithole WD, Hackenitz E (1998) Three-year survival of one-surface ART restorations and glass-ionomer sealants in a school oral health programme in Zimbabwe. Caries Res 32:119–126Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ho TFT, Smales RJ, Fang DKS (1999) A 2-year clinical study of two glass ionomer cements used in the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 27:195–201Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Oba AA, Dulgergil T, Sonmez IS, Dogan S (2009) Comparison of caries prevention with glass ionomer and composite resin fissure sealants. J Formos Med Assoc 108:844–848Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Faccin ES, Ferreira SH, Kramer PF, Ardenghi TM, Feldens CA (2009) Clinical performance of ART restorations in primary teeth: a survival analysis. J Clin Pediatr Dent 33:295–298Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Roeleveld AC, van Amerongen WE, Mandari GJ (2006) Influence of residual caries and cervical gaps on the survival rate of class II glass ionomer restorations. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 7:85–91Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kemoli AM, van Amerongen WE, Opinya G (2009) Influence of the experience of operator and assistant on the survival rate of proximal ART restorations: two-year results. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 10:227–232Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Barata TJE, Bresciani E, Mattos MCR, Lauris JRP, Ericson D, Navarro MFL (2008) Comparison of two minimally invasive methods on the longevity of glass ionomer cements restorations: short-term results of a pilot study. J Appl Oral Sci 16:155–160PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dülgergil CT, Soyman M, Civelek A (2005) Atraumatic restorative treatment with resin-modified glass ionomer material: short term results of a pilot study. Med Princ Pract 14:277–280Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lopez N, Simpser-Rafalin S, Berthold P (2005) Atraumatic restorative treatment for prevention and treatment of caries in an underserved community. Am J Public Health 95:1338–1339PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cefaly DFG, Barata TJE, Tapety CMC, Bresciani E, Navarro MFL (2005) Clinical evaluation of multisurface ART restorations. J Appl Oral Sci 13:15–19Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bresciani E, Carvalho WL, Pereira LCG, Barata TJE, Garcia-Godoy F, Navarro MFL (2005) Six-month evaluation of ART one-surface restorations in a community with high caries experience in Brazil. J Appl Oral Sci 13:180–186Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lo ECM, Holmgren CJ (2001) Provision of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations to Chinese pre-school children—a 30 month evaluation. Int J Paediatr Dent 11:3–10Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yee R (2001) An ART field study in western Nepal. Int Dent J 51:103–108Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zanata RL, Navarro MFL, Barbosa SH, Lauris JRP, Franco EB (2003) Clinical evaluation of three restorative materials applied in a minimal intervention caries treatment approach. J Public Health Dent 63:221–226Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    de Amorim RG, Leal SC, Mulder J, Creugers NH, Frencken JE (2014) Amalgam and ART restorations in children: a controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 18:117–124Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chen X, Du M, Fan M, Mulder J, Huysmans MC, Frencken JE (2012) Effectiveness of two new types of sealants: retention after 2 years. Clin Oral Investig 16:1443–1450Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chen X, Du MQ, Fan MW, Mulder J, Huysmans MC, Frencken JE (2012) Caries-preventive effect of sealants produced with altered glass-ionomer materials, after 2 years. Dent Mater 28:554–560Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Taifour D, Frencken JE, Beiruti N, van’t Hof MA, Truin GJ, van Palenstein Helderman WH (2003) Comparison between restorations in the permanent dentition produced by hand and rotary instrumentation—survival after 3 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 31:122–128Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Frencken JE, Makoni F, Sithole WD (1996) Atraumatic restorative treatment and glass-ionomer sealants in a school oral health programme in Zimbabwe: evaluation after 1 year. Caries Res 30:428–433Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hesse D, Bonifácio CC, Guglielmi Cde A, Franca C, Mendes FM, Raggio DP (2015) Low-cost glass ionomer cement as ART sealant in permanent molars: a randomized clinical trial. Braz Oral Res 29:e63Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    da Mata C, Allen PF, Cronin M, O’Mahony D, McKenna G, Woods N (2014) Cost-effectiveness of ART restorations in elderly adults: a randomized clinical trial. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 42:79–87Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ferreira JM, Pinheiro SL, Sampaio F, Menezes VA (2013) Use of glass ionomer cement containing antibiotics to seal off infected dentin: a randomized clinical trial. Braz Dent J 24:68–73Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bonifácio CC, Hesse D, Bönecker M, Van Loveren C, Van Amerongen WE, Raggio DP (2013) A preliminary clinical trial using flowable glass-ionomer cement as a liner in proximal-ART restorations: the operator effect. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 18:e529–e532PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Monse B, Heinrich-Weltzien R, Mulder J, Holmgren C, van Palenstein Helderman WH (2012) Caries preventive efficacy of silver diammine fluoride (SDF) and ART sealants in a school-based daily fluoride toothbrushing program in the Philippines. BMC Oral Health 12:52PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bonifácio CC, Hesse D, Raggio DP, Bönecker M, van Loveren C, van Amerongen WE (2013) The effect of GIC-brand on the survival rate of proximal-ART restorations. Int J Paediatr Dent 23:251–258Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Phonghanyudh A, Phantumvanit P, Songpaisan Y, Petersen PE (2012) Clinical evaluation of three caries removal approaches in primary teeth: a randomised controlled trial. Community Dent Health 29:173–178Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Roshan NM, Sakeenabi B (2011) Survival of occlusal ART restorations in primary molars placed in school environment and hospital dental setup—one year follow-up study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 16:e973–e977Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kemoli AM, Opinya GN, van Amerongen WE, Mwalili SM (2011) Two-year survival rates of proximal atraumatic restorative treatment restorations in relation to glass ionomer cements and post restoration meals consumed. Pediatr Dent 33:246–251Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    da Franca C, Colares V, Van Amerongen E (2011) Two-year evaluation of the atraumatic restorative treatment approach in primary molars class I and II restorations. Int J Paediatr Dent 21:249–253Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kemoli AM, Opinya GN, van Amerongen WE (2010) Two-year survival of glass ionomer sealants placed as part of proximal atraumatic restorative treatment restorations. East Afr Med J 87:375–381Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Carvalho TS, Sampaio FC, Diniz A, Bönecker M, Van Amerongen WE (2010) Two years survival rate of class II ART restorations in primary molars using two ways to avoid saliva contamination. Int J Paediatr Dent 20:419–425Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kemoli AM, van Amerongen WE, Opinya GN (2010) Short communication: Influence of different isolation methods on the survival of proximal ART restorations in primary molars after two years. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 11:136–139Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kemoli AM, Amerongen WE (2011) Effects of oral hygiene, residual caries and cervical marginal-gaps on the survival of proximal atraumatic restorative treatment approach restorations. Contemp Clin Dent 2:318–323PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hesse D, Bonifácio CC, Bönecker M, Guglielmi C de A, da Franca C, van Amerongen WE, Colares V, Raggio DP (2016) Survival rate of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations using a glass ionomer bilayer technique with a nanofilled coating: a bi-center randomized clinical trial. Pediatr Dent 38:18–24Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gonçalves CF, E Silva MV, Costa LR, de Toledo AO (2015) One-year follow-up of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) for dental caries in children undergoing oncohematological treatment: a pragmatic trial. BMC Oral Health 15:127PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hesse D, Bonifácio CC, Guglielmi Cde A, Bönecker M, van Amerongen WE, Raggio DP (2016) Bilayer technique and nano-filled coating increase success of approximal ART restorations: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Paediatr Dent 26:231–239Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Bonifácio CC, Hesse D, de Oliveira Rocha R, Bönecker M, Raggio DP, van Amerongen WE (2013) Survival rate of approximal-ART restorations using a two-layer technique for glass ionomer insertion. Clin Oral Investig 17:1745–1750Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Arrow P (2016) Restorative outcomes of a minimally invasive restorative approach based on atraumatic restorative treatment to manage early childhood caries: a randomised controlled trial. Caries Res 50:1–8Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hilgert LA, Frencken JE, de Amorim RG, Mulder J, Leal SC (2016) A study on the survival of primary molars with intact and with defective restorations. Int J Paediatr Dent 26:383–390Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Dulgergil CT, Ercan E, Colak H (2016) Evaluation of school-based prevention program in Turkey: results of a 24-month study. Eur J Dent 10:245–249PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kemoli AM (2014) The effects of ambient temperature and mixing time of glass ionomer cement material on the survival rate of proximal ART restorations in primary molars. Contemp Clin Dent 5:31–36PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Jordan RA, Hetzel P, Franke M, Markovic L, Gaengler P, Zimmer S (2011) Class III atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) in adults living in West Africa—outcomes after 48 months. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 39:164–170Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Jordan RA, Gaengler P, Markovic L, Zimmer S (2010) Performance of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) depending on operator-experience. J Public Health Dent 70:176–180Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Unal M, Oztas N (2015) Remineralization capacity of three fissure sealants with and without gaseous ozone on non-cavitated incipient pit and fissure caries. J Clin Pediatr Dent 39:364–370Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Guler C, Yilmaz Y (2013) A two-year clinical evaluation of glass ionomer and ormocer based fissure sealants. J Clin Pediatr Dent 37:263–267Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Chen XX, Liu XG (2013) Clinical comparison of Fuji VII and a resin sealant in children at high and low risk of caries. Dent Mater J 32:512–518Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Ulusu T, Odabaş ME, Tüzüner T, Baygin O, Sillelioğlu H, Deveci C, Gökdoğan FG, Altuntaş A (2012) The success rates of a glass ionomer cement and a resin-based fissure sealant placed by fifth-year undergraduate dental students. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 13:94–97Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Dhar V, Chen H (2012) Evaluation of resin based and glass ionomer based sealants placed with or without tooth preparation—a two year clinical trial. Pediatr Dent 34:46–50Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Antonson SA, Antonson DE, Brener S, Crutchfield J, Larumbe J, Michaud C, Yazici AR, Hardigan PC, Alempour S, Evans D, Ocanto R (2012) Twenty-four month clinical evaluation of fissure sealants on partially erupted permanent first molars: glass ionomer versus resin-based sealant. J Am Dent Assoc 143(2):115–122 Erratum in: J Am Dent Assoc 143:336Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Sly EG, Kaplan AE, Missana L (2010) Clinical evaluation of glass ionomer for pit and fissure sealing of fully erupted molars. Acta Odontol Latinoam 23:3–7Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Molina GF, Faulks D, Mazzola I, Mulder J, Frencken JE (2014) One year survival of ART and conventional restorations in patients with disability. BMC Oral Health 14:49PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Falbo S, Grisoski M, Vivone G, Zac L (2002) Dos años de atención comunitária com técnica atraumática em ninõs escolares. Rev de la Asoc Odontol Argentina 90:171–174Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Moraes NM, Knupp R, Cabral I (2004) Avaliação de dezoito meses de um programa de saúde bucal em alunos de uma escola municipal do Rio de Janeiro. Rev Bras Odontol 61:227–228Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Oliveira MT, Bittencourt ST, Oliveira MDS, Roberta H, Pereira JR (2009) Avaliação clínica do desempenho de TRA (tratamento restaurador atraumático) associado a um agente químico de remoção de cárie. Rev Odonto Ciênc 24:190–193Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Silva JJS, Carvalho RB, Batittucci MHG, Silva KRS (2005) Tratamento restaurador atraumático (TRA) em escolares do Morro São Benedito, município de Vitória, ES. JBC – J Bras Clín OdontolIntegr 9:24–30Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Bresciani E, Nogueira DA, Henostroza Quintans N, Barata TJE, Lauris JRP, Navarro MFL (2002) Influência do isolamento absoluto sobre o sucesso do tratamento restaurador atraumático (ART) em cavidades classe II, em dentes decíduos. Rev Fac Odontol Bauru 10:231–237Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Peres SHCS, Hussne R, Peres AS (2005) Tratamento restaurador atraumático (ART) em crianças de 4 a 7 anos: avaliação clínica após 6 meses. Rev Inst Ciênc Saúde 23:275–280Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Coelho FSM, Ribeiro CCC (2002) Restaurações atraumáticas em odontopediatria (ART). Rev Gaú Odontol 50:105–110Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Ewoldsen N, Cacho Z, Callahan S, Froeschle ML, GoelBrackett M (1999) Tratamiento restaurador no traumático usando uma mezcla de cementos de ionómero de vidrio. Rev Asoc Dent Mex 56:8–11Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Oliveira LMC (2000) Avaliação de um programa de tratamento restaurador atraumático em crianças institucionalizadas. Rio de Janeiro; s.n.: 168p, thesisGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Bustamante C, Edelberg MH (2004) Tratamiento restaurador atraumático (TRA) em dientes permanentes jóvenes. Resultados de 3 años: un procedimiento válido para la prevención e inactivación de caries en el marco de un programa comunitario de atención primaria. Rev Asoc Odontol Argent 92:155–159Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Edelberg MH, Basso ML (2000) Tratamiento restaurador atraumático. Rev Asoc Odontol Argent 88:43–47Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Figueiredo MC, Froner AM, Rosito DB, Gallarreta FWM, Sampaio MS (1999) A utilização da técnica de Tratamento Restaurador Atraumático (ART) em bebês: avaliação clínica de um ano. J Bras Odontopediatr Odontol Bebê 2:362–368Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Carvalho ERT, Filho HRS, Soet H, Gonçalves RM, Knupp R, Groisman S (2011) Avaliação de restaurações realizadas com cimento de ionômero de vidro nacional no tratamento restaurador atraumático. Rev Assoc Paul Cir Dent 65:28–31Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Pesaressi-Torres E, Garcia-Rupaya C, Villena-Sarmiento R (2013) Evaluacion de sellantes TRA de ionomero de vidrio aplicado en una comunidad peruana: 12 meses de seguimiento. Kiru 10:3–13Google Scholar
  91. 91.
  92. 92.
    Santos CFBF (2010) Aplicabilidade e longevidade do Tratamento Restaurador Atraumático em molars decíduos. Camaragibe; s.n; abr. 2010. 125 p. ilus, tabGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Zhang W, Jin Y (2015) Clinical effect of glass ionomer prevented pit and fissure sealant of permanent teeth. Journal of Dental Prevention and Treatment 23:163–165Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Wan H, Hu D, Li X (2007) ART sealants placed in Chinese school children—follow up results after 6 years. Journal of Practical Stomatology 23:704–707Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Cao H, Shu C, Wang S (2011) Cost-effectiveness evaluation of pit and fissure sealant with light-cured flowable resin and ART. Stomatology 31:617–619Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Guan W, Chen DY (2005) The effect comparison of caries prevention by two different pits and fissure sealants. Strait Journal of Preventive Medicine 11:12–14Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Ding X, Du An Y, Lu Y et al (2001) Atraumatic restorative treatment approach to restore the decayed deciduous teeth: evaluation after one year. Journal of Modern Stomatology 15:377–379Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Ling L, Zhang X, Wang X (2006) Clinical research of atraumatic restorative treatment by using high-strength glass ionomer in primary molars caries and root caries. Stomatology 26:420–421Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Feng J, Hu D, Wang X et al (2003) ART restoration treatment (ART) restoration root caries in 60-75 year olds study. Journal of Clinical Stomatology 19:28–29Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Yang Y (2011) Investigation on the effect of atraumatic restorative treatment restoring primary molar with caries. National Medical Frontiers of China 6:46–47Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Miao Y, Jiang Z, Du B (2008) Clinical evaluation of atraumatic restorative treatment in childhood caries. China Modern Doctor 46:18–19Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Hu ZQ, Xiao R (2008) Study of application on ART technique used to treat root caries. Modern Medicine & Health 24:2623–2624Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Wang YX (2006) Effects of FX glass ionomer sealants on milk teeth molar caries atraumatic restorative treatment. Journal of Medical Forum 27:11–12Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Leng C, Ge J, Li B (2011) Comparison of efficacy between two different glass-ionomer cements restoring young permanent teeth. Chinese Community Doctors  https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-614x.2011.15.127
  105. 105.
    Hu J, Chen Z, Liu J, Wang L, Zhao W (2015) Analysis of different techniques applied in the dental caries treatment of deciduous teeth. Progress in Modern Biomedicine 15:668–671Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Yan Z, Yan X, Ye M (2016) Evaluation of ART applied to treat dental caries of primary teeth. Medical Frontier 6:182–183Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Wu H, Li Y (2012) Efficacy comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment technology and traditional prepared hole repair technology with glass ionomer cement in the repair of deciduous teeth cavity. China Medical Herald 9:30–34Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Wang XM, Sun LX (2007) Clinical observation of using ART technique on primary molars of 3-5 year olds. Journal of Practical Stomatology 23:875Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Gao BX, Li Y, Zhang R, Wang YP (2004) Clinical evaluation of ART technique treating on carious primary teeth. Journal of Dental Prevention and Treatment 12:281Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Pu CM (2014) Observation of 100 cases of ART technique treating primary carious teeth. For All Health 8:104Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Han AJ, Wang XH, Chang ZM (2008) Clinical study of using ART technique treating primary carious teeth. Chinese Journal of School Doctor 24:2623–2624Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Ling L, Wang XN (2003) Clinical observation of ART technique treating on mesio-occlusal cavity of primary teeth. Journal of Dental Prevention and Treatment 11:40–41Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Li H, Dou ZH (2005) Clinical observation of using different material in the elderly decayed tooth ART technique. Pract Clin Med 6:105–107Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Chen D (2010) Analysis of applying ART technique to treating caries in basic level hospitals. Journal of China Traditional Chinese Medicine Information 2:134–135Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Zhang WW, Chen X, Fan MW, Mulder J, Frencken JE (2017) Retention rate of four different sealant materials after 4 years. Oral Health Prev Dent 15:307–314Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Hilgert LA, Leal SC, Freire GML, Mulder J, Frencken JE (2017) 3-Year survival rates of retained composite resin and ART sealants using two assessment criteria. Braz Oral Res 31:e35Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Honkala E, Behbehani J, Ibricevic H, Kerosuo E, Al-Jame G (2003) The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach to restoring primary teeth in a standard dental clinic. Int J Paediatr Dent 13:172–179Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Louw AJ, Sarvan I, Chikte UME, Honkala E (2002) One-year evaluation of atraumatic restorative treatment and minimal intervention techniques on primary teeth. S Afr Dent J 57:366–371Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Luo Y, Wei SHY, Fan MW, Lo ECM (1999) Clinical investigation of a high-strength glass ionomer restorative used with the ART technique in Wuhan, China: one-year results. Chin J Dent Res 2:73–78Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Lo ECM, Luo Y, Fan MW, Wei SHY (2001) Clinical investigation of two glass-ionomer restoratives used with the atraumatic restorative treatment approach in China: two-years results. Caries Res 35:458–463Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Taifour D, Frencken JE, Beiruti N, Van’t Hof MA, Truin GJ (2002) Effectiveness of glass-ionomer (ART) and amalgam restorations in the deciduous dentition—results after 3 years. Caries Res 36:437–444Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Yip HK, Smales RJ, Yu C, Deng DM (2002) Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars: one-year results. Quintessence Int 33:17–21Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Yu C, Gao X-J, Deng D-M, Yip H-K, Smales RJ (2004) Survival of glass ionomer restorations placed in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity preparations: 2-year results. Int Dent J 54:42–46Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Ersin NK, Candan U, Aykut A, Onçag O, Eronat C, Kose T (2006) 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 Am Dent Assoc 137:1529–1536Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Van Gemert-Schriks MC, van Amerongen WE, ten Cate JM, Aartman IH (2007) Three-year survival of single- and two-surface ART restorations in a high-caries child population. Clin Oral Invest 11:337–343Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Menezes JPL, Rosenblatt A, Medeiros E (2006) Clinical evaluation of atraumatic restorations in primary molars: a comparison between 2 glass ionomer cements. J Dent Child 73:91–97Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Yassen G (2009) One-year survival of ART occlusal restorations in primary molars placed with and without cavity conditioner. J Dent Child 76:136–141Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Deepa G, Shobha T (2010) A clinical evaluation of two glass ionomer cements in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment technique in India: 1 year follow up. Int J Paediatr Dent 20:410–418Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Hilgert LA, de Amorim RG, Leal SC, Mulder J, Creugers NH, Frencken JE (2014) Is high-viscosity glass-ionomer-cement a successor to amalgam for treating primary molars? Dent Mater 30:1172–1178Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Hilgert LA, Leal SC, Mulder J, Creugers NH, Frencken JE (2015) Caries-preventive effect of supervised toothbrushing and sealants. J Dent Res 94:1218–1224Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Cefaly DFG, Bresciani E, Lauris JRP, Barata TJE, Fagundes TC, Navarro MFL (2007) Clinical evaluation of multiple-surface ART restorations: 12 month follow-up. J Dent Child 74:203–208Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Ercan E, Dulgergil T, Soyman M, Dalli M, Yildirim I (2009) A field-trial of two restorative materials used with atraumatic restorative treatment in rural Turkey: 24-month results. J Appl Oral Sci 17:307–314PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Farag A, van der Sanden WJM, Abdelwahab H, Frencken JE (2011) Survival of ART restorations, assessed using selected FDI and the modified ART restoration criteria. Clin Oral Invest 15:409–415Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Frencken JE, Makoni F, Sithole WD (1998) ART restorations and glass ionomer sealants in Zimbabwe: survival after 3 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 26:372–381Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Frencken JE, Taifour D, Van’t Hof MA (2006) Survival of ART and amalgam restorations in permanent teeth of children after 6.3 years. J Dent Res 85:622–626Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Kikwilu EN, Mandari GJ, Honkala E (2001) Survival of Fuji IX fillings in permanent teeth of primary school children in Tanzania. East Afr Med J 78:19–21Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Lo EC, Holmgren CJ, Hu D, van Palenstein Helderman W (2007) Six-year follow up of atraumatic restorative treatment restorations placed in Chinese school children. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 35:387–392Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Loh KH (2003) An ART technique in the mobile dental squad in Malaysia: a four-year review. Malaysian Dent J 24:95–101Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Mickenautsch S, Rudolph MJ, Ogunbodede EO, Frencken JE (1999) The impact of the ART approach on the treatment profile in a mobile dental system (MDS) in South Africa. Int Dent J 49:132–138Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Pan American Health Organization (2006) Oral health of low income children. Procedures for atraumatic restorative treatment. Final report. PAHO, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Estupiñán-Day S, Tellez M, Kaur S, Milner T, Solari A (2013) Managing dental caries with atraumatic restorative treatment in children: successful experience in three Latin American countries. Rev Panam Salud Publica 33:237–243Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Rahimtoola S, Van Amerongen WE (2002) Comparison of two tooth saving preparation techniques for one surface cavities. J Dent Child 69:16–26Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    Yip KH-K, Smales RJ, Gao W, Peng D (2002) The effects of two cavity preparation methods on longevity of glass ionomer cement restorations. An evaluation after 12 months. J American Dent Assoc 133:744–751Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    Gao W, Peng D, Smales R, Yip KHK (2003) Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional restorative procedures in a hospital clinic: evaluation after 30 months. Quintessence Int 34:31–37Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    Ziraps A, Honkala E (2002) Clinical trial of a new glass ionomer for an atraumatic restorative treatment technique in class I restorations placed in Latvian school children. Med Princ Pract 11:44–47Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Ibiyemi O, Bankole OO, Oke GA (2011) Assessment of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) on the permanent dentition in a primary care setting in Nigeria. Int Dent J 61:2–6Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    Ibiyemi O, Bankole OO, Oke GA (2011) Survival rates of two atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) types in occlusal carious permanent teeth after two years. Afr J Med Med Sci 40:127–134Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Zanata RL, Fagundes TC, Freitas MC, Lauris JR, Navarro MF (2011) Ten-year survival of ART restorations in permanent posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig 15:265–271Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    Vieira ALF, Zanella NLM, Bresciani E, Barata TJE, Silva SMB, Machado MAAM, Navarro MFL (2006) Evaluation of glass ionomer sealants placed according to the ART approach in a community with high-caries experience: 1-year follow-up. J Appl Oral Sci 14:270–275PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Holmgren CJ, Lo EC, Hu D (2013) Glass ionomer ART sealants in Chinese school children—6-year results. J Dent 41:764–770Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    Luengas-Quintero E, Frencken JE, Muñúzuri-Hernández JA, Mulder J (2013) The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) strategy in Mexico: two-years follow up of ART sealants and restorations. BMC Oral Health 13:42PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Liu BY, Xiao Y, Chu CH, Lo EC (2014) Glass ionomer ART sealant and fluoride-releasing resin sealant in fissure caries prevention—results from a randomized clinical trial. BMC Oral Health 14:54PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Zhang W, Chen X, Fan MW, Mulder J, Huysmans MC, Frencken JE (2014) Do light cured ART conventional high-viscosity glass-ionomer sealants perform better than resin-composite sealants: a 4-year randomized clinical trial. Dent Mater 30:487–492Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    Beiruti N, Frencken JE, van’t Hof MA, Taifour D, van Palenstein Helderman WH (2006) Caries-preventive effect of a one-time application of composite resin and glass ionomer sealants after 5 years. Caries Res 40:52–59Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    Cumpston M (2013) Exploring heterogeneity—slidecast. Cochrane Training. http://training.cochrane.org/resource/exploring-heterogeneity. Accessed 13 February 2018
  156. 156.
    R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. URL https://www.R-project.org/
  157. 157.
    Frencken JE, van’t Hof MA, Taifour D, Al-Zaher I (2007) 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. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 35:207–214Google Scholar
  158. 158.
    Ladewig NM, Sahiara CS, Yoshioka L et al (2017) Efficacy of conventional treatment with composite resin and atraumatic restorative treatment in posterior primary teeth: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 7:e015542.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015542 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Olegário IC, Hesse D, Bönecker M et al (2016) Effectiveness of conventional treatment using bulk-fill composite resin versus atraumatic restorative treatments in primary and permanent dentition: a pragmatic randomized clinical trial. BMC Oral Health 17:34.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-016-0260-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Kemoli AM, van Amerongen WE (2009) Influence of the cavity-size on the survival rate of proximal ART restorations in primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent 19:423–430Google Scholar
  161. 161.
    Gao SS, Zhang S, Mei ML, Lo EC, Chu CH (2016) Caries remineralization and arresting effect in children by professionally applied fluoride treatment—a systematic review. BMC Oral Health 16:12PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Mijan M, de Amorim RG, Leal SC, Mulder J, Oliveira L, Creugers NH, Frencken JE (2014) The 3.5 year survival rates of primary molars treated according to three treatment protocols: a controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 18:1061–1069Google Scholar
  163. 163.
    Innes NP, Evans DJ, Stirrups DR (2011) Sealing caries in primary molars: randomized control trial, 5-year results. J Dent Res 90:1405–1410Google Scholar
  164. 164.
    Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V, Banerjee A (2010) Atraumatic restorative treatment versus amalgam restoration longevity: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig 14:233–240Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    Tedesco TK, Calvo AF, Lenzi TL, Hesse D, Guglielmi CA, Camargo LB, Gimenez T, Braga MM, Raggio DP (2016) ART is an alternative for restoring occlusoproximal cavities in primary teeth—evidence from an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Paediatr Dent 27:201–209Google Scholar
  166. 166.
    Dorri M, Martinez-Zapata MJ, Walsh T, Marinho VCC, Sheiham A, Zaror C (2017) Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:CD008072Google Scholar
  167. 167.
    Mickenautsch S (2016) High-viscosity glass-ionomer cement for direct posterior tooth restorations in permanent teeth: the evidence in brief. J Dent 55:121–123Google Scholar
  168. 168.
    Frencken JE (2014) The state-of-the-art of ART sealants. Dent Update 41(119–120):122–124Google Scholar
  169. 169.
    Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V (2016) Caries-preventive effect of high-viscosity glass ionomer and resin-based fissure sealants on permanent teeth: a systematic review of clinical trials. PLoS One 11:e0146512PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BrasíliaBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic DentistryRadboud University Medical CentreNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry Department, School of DentistryUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  4. 4.State Key Laboratory Breeding Base of Basic Science of Stomatology (Hubei-MOST) & Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine Ministry of Education, School and Hospital of StomatologyWuhan UniversityWuhanChina
  5. 5.Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of BrasíliaBrasíliaBrazil

Personalised recommendations