IADR Abstract Archives
Three-year Survival Of Class II Restorations Using Two Restorative Materials
Objectives: To compare the 3-year cumulative survival percentages of class II restorations prepared with the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment method (ART) using the high-viscosity glass-ionomer (HVGIC) Equia Fil (GC America, Alsip, USA) and the traditional method using the resin composite Filtek Z250 (3M, St. Paul, USA).
Methods: A parallel group study design and a stratified randomization process (DMFS count and cavity size) were applied. A total of 169 class II restorations were placed in 109 small, 51 medium and 9 large-sized cavities in 85 people (mean age 21.7 years). Restorations were assessed by two calibrated independent evaluators according to the ART restoration and USPHS criteria at 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 years (Kappa coefficient value to measure inter-examiners consistency was 0.84 (SE=0.07) for applying the ART restoration criteria and 1.00 for the USPHS criteria). Data were analyzed using the Proportional Hazard Rate Regression Model with frailty correction.
Results: Drop-out was 1.7% at 3-years. According to ART restoration and USPHS criteria, the 3-year cumulative survival percentages of class II restorations for ART/HVGIC were 96.4 and 97.6, and for the traditional resin composite class II restorations 92.9 and 94.1. No differences were observed in the cumulative survival percentages between the two treatment groups at 3 years (ART criteria: p=0.14; USPHS criteria p=0.20).
Conclusions: HVGIC Equia Fil in combination with the ART method and Filtek Z250 used with the traditional method may be viable alternatives to the traditional amalgam for restoring class II cavities over 3 years.
Methods: A parallel group study design and a stratified randomization process (DMFS count and cavity size) were applied. A total of 169 class II restorations were placed in 109 small, 51 medium and 9 large-sized cavities in 85 people (mean age 21.7 years). Restorations were assessed by two calibrated independent evaluators according to the ART restoration and USPHS criteria at 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 years (Kappa coefficient value to measure inter-examiners consistency was 0.84 (SE=0.07) for applying the ART restoration criteria and 1.00 for the USPHS criteria). Data were analyzed using the Proportional Hazard Rate Regression Model with frailty correction.
Results: Drop-out was 1.7% at 3-years. According to ART restoration and USPHS criteria, the 3-year cumulative survival percentages of class II restorations for ART/HVGIC were 96.4 and 97.6, and for the traditional resin composite class II restorations 92.9 and 94.1. No differences were observed in the cumulative survival percentages between the two treatment groups at 3 years (ART criteria: p=0.14; USPHS criteria p=0.20).
Conclusions: HVGIC Equia Fil in combination with the ART method and Filtek Z250 used with the traditional method may be viable alternatives to the traditional amalgam for restoring class II cavities over 3 years.
