IADR Abstract Archives
Clinical Evaluation of Class II ART and Composite Restorations: 24-months
Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of Class II Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) restorations with proximal retention grooves in permanent dentition with composite resin restorations.
Methods: One hundred and thirty five participants, 8-28 years old, in good general health, cavities without pulp involvement and tooth pain were included in this parallel randomized clinical trial. Seventy-seven restorations of High Viscosity Glass Ionomer Cement (Equia-GC) of ART and seventy-seven conventional restorations of composite resin (Z350–3M) were made. The restorations were evaluated at 6, 12 and 24-months using the evaluation criteria of ART and of the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) modified. The data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitnney, Chi-square, Fisher's Exact and Chi-square tests with linear trend.
Results: The success rates for composite resin restorations were 100% (6-months), 98.7% (12-months) and 91.5% (24-months) for both assessment criteria and for ART restorations were the same for both assessment criteria for 6-months (98.7%) and 12-months (95.8%) and were 92% for 24-months when using the criteria of USPHS modified and 90.3% when using the criteria of ART, and no statistical difference was observed (p=0.466). The variables gender, locality, age, DMFT, VPI, GBI, toothache, occlusion, proximal contact, cavity size, anesthesia and cooperation did not present a statistical association with the success rates of the restorations (p>0.050).
Conclusions: There is no difference in the success rate of class II restorations of ART with HVGIC compared to class II resin composite restorations, after 24-months.
Methods: One hundred and thirty five participants, 8-28 years old, in good general health, cavities without pulp involvement and tooth pain were included in this parallel randomized clinical trial. Seventy-seven restorations of High Viscosity Glass Ionomer Cement (Equia-GC) of ART and seventy-seven conventional restorations of composite resin (Z350–3M) were made. The restorations were evaluated at 6, 12 and 24-months using the evaluation criteria of ART and of the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) modified. The data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitnney, Chi-square, Fisher's Exact and Chi-square tests with linear trend.
Results: The success rates for composite resin restorations were 100% (6-months), 98.7% (12-months) and 91.5% (24-months) for both assessment criteria and for ART restorations were the same for both assessment criteria for 6-months (98.7%) and 12-months (95.8%) and were 92% for 24-months when using the criteria of USPHS modified and 90.3% when using the criteria of ART, and no statistical difference was observed (p=0.466). The variables gender, locality, age, DMFT, VPI, GBI, toothache, occlusion, proximal contact, cavity size, anesthesia and cooperation did not present a statistical association with the success rates of the restorations (p>0.050).
Conclusions: There is no difference in the success rate of class II restorations of ART with HVGIC compared to class II resin composite restorations, after 24-months.