Three Year Clinical Performance of ART and MIT Restorations

Objectives: This study evaluated the clinical performance of ART and MIT restorations in primary teeth after three years . Methods: Four hundred and one school children aged 6-9-years with decayed primary teeth (ie dentine caries with no pulpal involvement) were selected.A total of 1119 restorations involving 1, 2, 3 or 4 surfaces were placed using glass ionomer (Fuji IX) or a compomer (Dyract AP) for both ART (caries removed with hand instruments) and MIT Caries removed with a slow dental drill). Evaluations were done anually over 3 years using a 0.5 mm ball-tip periodontal probe (WHO) for assessing marginal defects. Results: After 3-years 74% (n=295) and 44% (n=360) of restorations were followed up. Of the restorations evaluated, 78% were clinically acceptable. Using the ART technique 74% of the glass ionomer and 82% of the compomer restorations were acceptable compared to the MIT technique with 70% of the glass ionomer and 87% of the compomer restorations acceptable. The success rate of all restorations combined (technique and material) varied with the number of surfaces, with one surface restorations the most successful (86%), followed by 3-plus surfaces (71%) and 2-surface restorations (61%). Considering the technique and restorative material the success rate of one and two surface restorations was lower for glass ionomer versus compomer for both ART and MIT (1-surface: 78% GI vs 95% Comp; 81% vs 95% and 2-surfaces: 67% vs 74%; 50% vs 87%). For 3 plus surface restorations the success rate was higher for glass ionomer versus compomer restorations for both ART and MIT (80% GI vs 71% Comp and 71% GI vs 56% Comp – not significant). Conclusions: The success rate did not differ with the technique (ART and MIT) used. This study has shown ART and MIT as acceptable treatment in the primary dentition in regions with high caries experience.