Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 11, Issue 5, pp 228–231 | Cite as

ART class II restoration loss in primary molars: re-restoration or not?

  • C. P. J. M. BoonEmail author
  • N. L. Visser
  • A. M. Kemoli
  • W. E. van Amerongen
Article

Abstract

AIM: The purpose of this study was to find an answer as to what to do with Atraumatic Restorations (ART) failures: re-restore or leave the preparation further unfilled? STUDY DESIGN: Cross sectional study. METHODS: In 2006, 804 children in Kenya each had one proximal cavity treated using the ART approach. Out of the original group of 192 children, who had lost their restorations but still had the treated molars in situ, were selected for further study in 2008. The length of time that the restorations had been in situ was known while the colour, hardness and the extent of infected dentine was then evaluated and documented. STATISTICS: Analysis of the data obtained was conducted using SPSS 16.0. Chi Square tests were performed with the variables of hardness, colour and infected dentine, and a 5% confidence interval was used. The Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient was also calculated. RESULTS: The results showed that 66% of the molars that had lost restorations had hard dentine, 78% of the preparations showed dark dentine and 50.7% appeared to have no infected dentine. These percentages increased with the increase in the survival time of the restorations. CONCLUSIONS: It is not always necessary to re-restore primary molars after ART restoration loss. Further research is necessary to confirm these findings.

Keywords

ART remineralisation Class II developing countries 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amaral MT, Guedes-Pinto AC, Chevitarese O Effects of a glass-ionomer cement on the remineralisation of occlusal caries-an in situ study. Braz Oral Res. Apr–Jun; 2006;20(2):91–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Axelsson P. An introduction to risk prediction and preventive dentistry. Quintes-sence Publishing Co Inc, Karlstad, Sweden. 2000.pp 77–97.Google Scholar
  3. Benelli EM, Serra MC, Rodrigues Jr AL, Cury JA. In situ Anticariogenic Poten-tial of Glass Ionomer Cement. Caries Res; 1993; 27:280–284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ersin NK, Candan U, Aykut A, et al. A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach. Results at 24 months. J Amer Dent Assoc, 2006 Vol. 137, November, 1529–1536.Google Scholar
  5. Frencken JE, Pilot T, Songpaisan Y, et al. Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART): Rationale, technique, en Development. Journal of Public Health Dent 1996; Vol. 56, No. 3, Special Issue.Google Scholar
  6. Frencken JE, Homgren CJ. Atraumatic Restorative Treatment for dental caries. STI book Bv, Nijmegen. 1999. pp 76–77.Google Scholar
  7. Frencken JE, van St Hof MA, van Amerongen WE, et al. Effectiveness of single surface ART restorations in the permanent dentition: a meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2004;83:120–123.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frencken JE, van Amerongen WE in Fejerskov O, Kidd E. Dental Caries. Blackwell Munksgaard, Oxford. 2008. Chapter 23, pp 427–440.Google Scholar
  9. Gao W, Smales RJ, Yip HK. Demineralisation and remineralisation of dentine caries and the role of glass-ionomer cements. Int Dent J. 2000; Feb;50(1):51–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greene JC, Vermillion JR. The simplified oral hygiene index. J Am Dent Assoc. Jan 1964; 68:7–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hatibovic-Kofman S, Suljak JP, Koch G. Remineralization of natural carious lesions with a glass ionomer cement. Swed Dent J 1997; 21(1–2): 11–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kemoli AM, van Amerongen WE. Influence of the cavity-size on the survival rate of proximal ART restorations in primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2009; Nov;19(6):423–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kemoli AM, van Amerongen WE, Opinya GN. Short Communication: Influence of different isolation methods on the survival of proximal ART restorations in primary molars after two years. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2010; Jun;11(3):136–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kidd EAM, Joyston-Bechal S, Beighton D. Microbiological Validation of Assessments of Caries Activity during Cavity Preparation. Caries Res 1993;27:402–408.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lo ECM, Holmgren CJ. Provision of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations to Chinese pre-school children. A 30-month evaluation. Int J Paediatr Dent 2001; 11:3–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Luo Y, Wei SH, Fan MW, et al. Clinical investigation of a high-strength glass ionomer restorative used with the ART technique in Wuhan, China: One-year results. Chin J Dent Res 1999; 2:73–78PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mallow PK, Durward CS, Klaipo M. Restoration of permanent teeth in young rural children in Cambodia using the ART technique and Fuji II Glass Ionomer. Int J. Paediatr Dent 1998; 8:35–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Penning Ch, Van Amerongen JP, De Kloet HJ, et al. Caries lesions (Carieslaesies), Prelum uitgevers, Houten, 2007. pp 323–347.Google Scholar
  19. Pereira PNR, Inokoshi S, Yamada T, et al. Microhardness of in vitro caries inhibition zone adjacent to conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater 1998; 14:179–185, June.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Phantumvanit P, Songpaisan Y, Frencken JE, et al. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): Evaluation after 2 years. 1995.P.53 WCPD’95 Official Program.Google Scholar
  21. Rahimtoola S, van Amerongen WE. Comparison of two tooth saving preparation techniques for one surface cavities. J Dent Child 2002; 69:16–26.Google Scholar
  22. Roeleveld AC, van Amerongen WE, Mandari GJ. Influence of residual caries and cervical gaps on the survival rate of Class II glass ionomer restorations. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2006; Jun;7(2): 85–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Santiago BM, Ventin DA, Primo LG, et al. Microhardness of dentine underlying ART restorations in primary molars: an in vivo pilot study. Br Dent J. 2005; 199 No. 2 July 23.Google Scholar
  24. Smales RJ, Yip HK. The Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach for the management of dental caries. Quintessence Int. 2002; 33(6): 427–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Taifour D, Frencken JE, Beiruti N, et al. Effectiveness of the ART approach in a child population in Syria. (Doctoral thesis, December 16, 2002a) University of Njmegen.Google Scholar
  26. Taifour D, Frencken JE, Beiruti N, et al. Effectiveness of Glass-ionomer sealents in newly erupted first molars after 5 years: a pilot study. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2002b; 31:314–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. ten Cate JM, van Duinen RN. Hypermineralization of Dentinal lesions adjacent to Glass-ionomer Cement restorations. J Dent Res 1995; 74(6): 1266–1271, June.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. ten Cate JM, Buijs MJ, Damen JJM. The effects of GIC restorations on enamel and dentin demineralization en remineralization. Adv Dent Res 1995; 9(4): 384–388, December.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. van Amerongen WE. Dental caries under glass ionomer restorations. J Public Health Dent 1996; 56(3): 150–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van Duinen RN, van Strijp AJ, ten Cate JM. Dentin remineralisation induced by glass ionomers. Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd 1992; May; 99(5):187–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. van Gemert-Schriks MCM, van Amerongen WE, ten Cate JM, et al. Three year survival of single- and two-surface ART restorations in a high-caries child population. Clin Oral Invest 2007; 11:337–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van de Hoef N, van Amerongen WE. Influence of local anaesthesia on the quality of Class II glass ionomer restorations. Int J Paediatr Dent 2007; 17:239–247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weerheijm KL, de Soet JJ, van Amerongen WE, et al. The effect of glassionomer cement on carious dentine: An in vivo study. Caries Res 1993; 27:417–423.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yip HK. Comparison of ART and conventional cavity preparations for glassionomer cement restorations in primary molars: 12-month results. Quintessence Int 2002; 33:17–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. P. J. M. Boon
    • 1
    Email author
  • N. L. Visser
    • 1
  • A. M. Kemoli
    • 1
  • W. E. van Amerongen
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. Cariology Endodontology PedodontologyAcademic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA)AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations