Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 227–232 | Cite as

Influence of the experience of operator and assistant on the survival rate of proximal ART restorations: two-year results

  • A. M. KemoliEmail author
  • W. E. van Amerongen
  • G. Opinya
Article

Abstract

AIM: The objective of the study was to determine the influence of the experience of the operator and the assistant on the survival rate of proximal ART-restorations after 2 years when placed using two methods of tooth-isolation and three glass ionomer cement-brands. STUDY DESIGN: A clinical intervention study. METHODS: Each of 804 children aged 6–8 years received one proximal restoration in their primary molars. The restorations were placed by ‘experienced/inexperienced’ operators randomly paired with ‘experienced/ inexperienced’ assistants. The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach was used with 3 brands of glass ionomer cements (GIC) and 2 tooth-isolation methods (rubber dam vs cotton rolls). Trained and calibrated evaluators evaluated the restorations, soon after placement and after 2 years. STSTISTICS: The data collected were analyzed using SPSS 14.0, to determine and relate the survival rate of the restorations to the operator and assistant with respect to the other factors such as the restorative material used and the isolation method applied. RESULTS: After 2 years, the survival rate of the restorations was 30.8%. In general, there were no statistical significant differences in the survival rate of the restorations made by the ‘experienced’ vs ‘inexperienced’ operators, but individually, the operator with more experience was associated with a significantly higher survival rate of the restorations. The experienced assistants were associated with significantly higher survival rates of the restorations. The most ‘experienced’ operator paired with any ‘experienced’ assistant and using rubber dam tooth-isolation method, was associated with a significantly higher survival rate of the restorations. CONCLUSION: The combination of the ‘experienced’ operator and assistant using rubber dam tooth-isolation method had the best chance of survival for proximal ART restorations, irrespective of the material-brand used.

Key words

Primary molars proximal cavities atraumatic restorative treatment survival rate operator and assistant experiences 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abramowitz J. Expanded functions for dental assistants: a preliminary study. J Amer Dent Assoc 1966; 72:386–391.Google Scholar
  2. Cohen J A. coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1960; 20:37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Frencken JE, Pilot T, Songpaisan Y, Phantumvant P: Atraumatic restorative treatment ART) rationale, technique and development. J. Public Health Dent 1996a; 56:135–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Frencken JE, Makoni F, Sithole WD. Atraumatic restorative treatment and glass ionomer sealants in a school oral health programme in Zimbabwe: evaluation after one year. Caries Res 1996b; 30:428–433.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frencken JE, Holmgren CJ. Atraumatic restorative treatment for dental caries. Nijimegen STI Book b.v., 1999, ISBN 906759024X.Google Scholar
  6. Frencken JE, Borsun-Anderson K, Makoni F, et al. Effectiveness of an oral health education programme in primary schools in Zimbabwe after 3.5 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2001;29:253–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frencken JE, van’t Hof MA, van Amerongen WE, Holmgren CJ. Effectiveness of single-surface restorations in the permanent dentition. A meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2004; 83:120–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fritz UB, Finger WJ, Stean H. Salivary contamination during bonding procedures with one bottle adhesive systems. Quintessence Int 1998;29:567–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hawthorne WS, Smales RJ. Factors influencing long-term restoration survival in three private dental practices in Adelaide. Aus Dent J 1997; 42:59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lo ECM, Holmgren CJ. Provision of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations to Chinese pre-school children — a 30-month evaluation. Int J Paed Dent 2001;11:3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lo ECM, Luo Y, Fan MW, Wei SHY. Clinical investigation of two glass ionomer restoratives used with the atraumatic restorative treatment approach in China: two year results. Caries Res 2001; 35:458–463.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mickenautsch S, Rudolph MJ. Undergraduate training in the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach — an activity report. S Afric Dent J 2002;57:355–57.Google Scholar
  13. Mickenautsch. S., Harkison B, Grossman E, Voids in ART restorations: effect of operator expertise and mixing mode. J Dent Res 2003; 82:C–623 (abstract 75).Google Scholar
  14. Mickenautsch S, Grossman E. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) — factors affecting success. J Appl Oral Sci 2006;14(5):32–37.Google Scholar
  15. Mjör IA, Dahl JE, Moorhead JE. Age of restorations at replacement in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand, 2000;58:97–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mjör IA, Gordan VV. A review of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART). Intern Dent J 1999; 49:127–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nomoto R, McCabe JF. The effect of mixing methods on the compressive strength of glass ionomer cement. J dent 2001; 29(3):205–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rahimtoola S, van Amerongen E. Comparison of two tooth saving preparation techniques for one surface cavities. J Dent Child 2002; 69:16–26.Google Scholar
  19. Ryge G, Snyder M. Evaluating the clinical quality of restorations. J Amer Dent Assoc 1973; 87:369–377.Google Scholar
  20. Smales RJ, Webster DA, Leppard PI. Survival predictors of amalgam restorations. J Dent 1991;19:272–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Taifour D, Frencken JE, Beiruti N, Truin GJ. Effects of glass ionomer sealants in newly erupted first molars after 5 years: a pilot study. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2003;31:314–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van Amerongen WE. Dental caries under glass ionomer restorations. J Public Health Dent 1996;56(3):150–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. van den Dungen GM, Huddleston Slater AE, van Amerongen WE. ART or conventional restorations? A final examination of proximal restorations in deciduous molars. Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd 2004;111:345–349.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. van der Hoef N, van Amerongen WE. Influence of local anaesthetic on the quality of class II glass ionomer restorations. Inter J Paediatr Dent 2007;17(4):239–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. van Gemert-Schriks MCM, van Amerongen WE, ten Cate JM, Aartman IHA. Three-year survival of single- and two-surface ART restorations in a high-caries child population. Clin Oral Invest 2007; 11(4):37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yu C, Gao XJ, Deng DM, Yip HK, Smales RJ. Survival of glass ionomer restorations in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity preparations: 2-year results. Int Dent J 2004;54:42–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. M. Kemoli
    • 1
    Email author
  • W. E. van Amerongen
    • 2
  • G. Opinya
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Paediatric Dentistry/Orthodontics, School of Dental SciencesUniversity of NairobiNairobiKenya
  2. 2.Dept of Cariology Endodontology PedodontologyUniversity of Amsterdam, ACTAAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations