Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Success rates of manual restorative treatment (MRT) with amalgam in permanent teeth in high caries-risk Filipino children

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The objective of the study is to evaluate the success rate of amalgam restorations in manually prepared cavities under field conditions within a comprehensive school-based oral health-care program in high caries-risk children.

Materials and methods

A total of 1322 restorations were placed in the permanent teeth of 619 high caries risk Filipino children by two dentists and two trained health-care workers. Only hand instruments and an encapsulated amalgam, mixed with a manually powered amalgamator, were used. The restorations were evaluated after a service time of 1 to 5 years using modified atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) criteria.

Results

The overall success rate of the amalgam restorations was 95.3 % (n = 1260) after a mean service time of 2.7 years (SD = 1.4). Multiple-surface restorations showed significantly higher failure rates (11.4 %) than single-surface occlusal (4.7 %) and single-surface non-occlusal (2.1 %) restorations; 93.6 % of large restorations was performed successfully, but had a risk of failure twice to that of small restorations (odds ratio (OR) = 2.141). The score of the decayed, missing, and filled teeth (DMFT) index had significant influence on the success rate. The risk of restoration failure increased by 11.5 % for each unit increase in DMFT (OR = 1.148). Neither the operator nor age nor gender of the patient had a significant effect on the success rate of the restorations.

Conclusion

Amalgam was performed satisfactorily as a filling material when placed under field conditions in manually prepared cavities in the permanent dentition of high caries-risk children. Success of the restorations was influenced by the patient’s caries experience (DMFT), restoration size, and service time.

Clinical relevance

Manual restorative treatment (MRT) amalgam restorations were performed satisfactorily, but higher dental caries experience and large cavities contribute to lower success rates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. van Palenstein Heldermann W, Benzian H (2006) Implementation of a basic package of oral care: towards a reorientation of dental NGOs and their volunteers. Int Dent J 56:44–48

    Google Scholar 

  2. Department of Education, Philippines (2008) National oral health survey among the public school population in the Philippines 2006, Manila

  3. Smales RJ, Yip HK (2002) The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach for the management of dental caries. Quintessence Int 33:427–432

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Frencken JE, Holmgren C (1999) Atraumatic restorative treatment for dental caries. STI Book, Nijmegen

    Google Scholar 

  5. Frencken JE, Pilot T, Songpaisan Y, Phantumvanit P (1996) Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART). Rationale, technique, and development. J Public Health Dent 56:135–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Frencken JE, Holmgren C (1999) How effective is ART in the management of dental caries? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 27:423–430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Frencken JE, Leal SC, Navarro MF (2012) Twenty-five-year atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach: a comprehensive overview. Clin Oral Investig 16:1337–1346

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. de Amorim RG, Leal SC, Frencken JE (2012) Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 16:429–441

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zanata RL, Fagundes TC, Freitas MCCA, Lauris JRP, Navarro MFL (2011) Ten-year survival of ART restorations in permanent posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig 15:265–271

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yip HK, Smales RJ, Ngo HC, Tay FR, Chu FCS (2001) Selection of restorative materials for the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach: a review. Spec Care Dentist 21:216–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V, Banerjee A (2010) Atraumatic restorative treatment versus amalgam restoration longevity: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig 14:233–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Qvist J, Qvist V, Mjör IA (1990) Placement and longevity of amalgam restorations in Denmark. Acta Odontol Scand 48:297–303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitao J, DeRouen TA (2007) Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. JADA 138:775–783

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sjögren P, Halling A (2002) Long-term cost of direct class II molar restorations. Swed Dent J 26:107–114

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fathi M, Mortazavi V (2004) A review on dental amalgam corrosion and its consequences. J Res Med Sci 1:42–51

    Google Scholar 

  16. Monse-Schneider B, Heinrich-Weltzien R, Schug D, Sheiham A, Borutta A (2003) Assessment of manual restorative treatment (MRT) with amalgam in high-caries Filipino children: results after 2 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 31:129–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Frencken JE, Leal SC (2010) The correct use of the ART approach. J Appl Oral Sci 18:1–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 37:246–253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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 35:90–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Oral Health Surveys. Basic methods, 4th Ed. (1997) World Health Organisation, Geneva

  21. Frencken JE, Makoni F, Sithole WD (1998) ART restorations and glass ionomer sealants in Zimbabwe: survival after 3 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 26:372–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Phantumvanit P, Songpaisan Y, Pilot T, Frencken JE (1996) Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): a three year community field trial in Thailand—survival of one-surface restorations in the permanent dentition. J Public Health Dent 56:141–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Holmgren CJ, Lo ECM, Hu D, Wan H (2000) ART restorations and sealants placed in Chinese school children—results after three years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 28:314–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Taifour D, Frencken JE, Beiruti N, van’t Hof MA, Truin GJ, Van Palenstein-Heldermann W (2003) Comparison between restorations in the permanent dentition produced by hand and rotary instrumentation—survival after 3 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 31:122–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Burton P, Gurrin L, Sly P (1998) Extending the simple linear regression model to account for correlated responses: an introduction to generalized estimating equations and multi-level mixed modelling. Stat Med 17:1261–1291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rasines Alcaraz MG, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, Davis D, Iheozor-Ejiofor Z (2014) Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth (Review) Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 3

  27. Rasines Alcaraz MG, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, Davis D, Iheozor-Ejiofor Z (2014) Amalgam or composite fillings—which material lasts longer? Evid Based Dent 15:50–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R (2004) Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 29:481–508

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hickel R, Manhart J (2001) Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 3:45–64

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lo ECM, Holmgren CJ, Hu D, van Palenstein HW (2007) Six-year follow up of atraumatic restorative treatment restorations placed in Chinese schoolchildren. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 35:387–392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Farag A, van der Sanden WJM, Abdelwahab H, Frencken JE (2011) Survival of ART restorations assessed using selected FDI and modified ART restoration criteria. Clin Oral Investig 15:409–415

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mijan M, de Amorim RG, Leal SC, Mulder J, Oliveira L, Creugers NHJ, Frencken JE (2013) The 3.5-year survival rates of primary molars treated according to three treatment protocols: a controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. doi:10.1007/s00784-013-1077-1

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Trachtenberg F, Maserejian NN, Tavares M, Soncini JA, Hayes C (2008) Extent of tooth decay in the mouth and increased need for replacement of dental restorations: the New England Children’s Amalgam Trail. Pediatr Dent 30:388–392

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Soncini JA, Maserejian NN, Trachtenberg F, Tavares M, Hayes C (2007) The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth. JADA 138:763–772

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Correa MB, Peres MA, Peres KG, Horta BL, Barros AJ, Demarco FF (2013) Do socioeconomic determinants affect the quality of posterior dental restorations? A multilevel approach. J Dent 41:960–967

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BAC, Huysmans CDNJM (2010) 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 89:1063–1067

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wang L, Lopes LG, Bresciani E, Lauris JRP, Mondelli RFL, Navarro MFL (2004) Evaluation of class I ART restorations in Brazilian schoolchildren: three-year results. Spec Care Dent 24:28–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. van Gemert-Schriks MCM, van Amerongen WE, ten Cate JM, Aartman IHA (2009) Three-year survival of single- and two-surface ART restorations in high-caries child population. Clin Oral Investig 11:337–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Goldstein GR (2010) The longevity of direct and indirect posterior restorations is uncertain and may be affected by a number of dentist, patient-, and material-related factors. J Evid Base Dent Pract 10:30–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 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 85:622–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Frencken JE, van’t Hof MA, Taifour D, Al-Zaher I (2007) Effectiveness of ART and traditional amalgam approach restoring single-surface cavities in posterior teeth of permanent dentition in school children after 6.3 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 35:207–214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. WHO Consensus statement on dental amalgam (1997) FDI World 6:9

  43. Council of European Dentists (2010) CED-resolution on dental amalgam; CED-DOC-2010-085-E-FIN

  44. International Organization for Standardization (1995) Standard 1559 dental materials – alloys for dental amalgam, Geneva

  45. Benzian H, Monse B, Belizario V Jr, Schratz A, Sahin M, van Palenstein Heldermann W (2012) Public health in action: effective school health needs renewed international attention. Glob Health Action. doi:10.3402/gha.v5i0.14870

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Preventive Dentistry and Paediatric Dentistry, Jena University Hospital, Bachstr. 18, 07743, Jena, Germany

    I. M. Schüler & R. Heinrich-Weltzien

  2. Department of Education, Health and Nutrition Center, Cagayan de Oro, Philippines

    B. Monse

  3. Aide Odontologique Internationale, Paris, France

    C. J. Holmgren

  4. Institute of Medical Statistics, Computer Science and Documentation, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany

    T. Lehmann

  5. Department of Preventive and Community Medicine, School of Medicine, Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines

    G. S. Itchon

Authors
  1. I. M. Schüler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. Monse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. J. Holmgren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. T. Lehmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G. S. Itchon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Heinrich-Weltzien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I. M. Schüler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schüler, I.M., Monse, B., Holmgren, C.J. et al. Success rates of manual restorative treatment (MRT) with amalgam in permanent teeth in high caries-risk Filipino children. Clin Oral Invest 19, 1493–1500 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1374-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1374-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation