Advertisement

Randomized clinical trial of class II restoration in permanent teeth comparing ART with composite resin after 12 months

  • Rafael Menezes-SilvaEmail author
  • S. R. M. Velasco
  • R. S. Bastos
  • G. Molina
  • H. M. Honório
  • J. E. Frencken
  • M. F. L. Navarro
Original Article
  • 46 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

This study evaluated the effectiveness of class II restorations, in permanent teeth, through the ART technique in comparison to composite resin.

Materials and methods

Participants (154), aged 8 to 19 years, with good general health, with class II cavities in permanent teeth, and without pulp involvement and tooth pain were included in this parallel and randomized clinical trial. The Ethics Committee approval number was CAAE: 24012913.0.1001.5417. Seventy-seven restorations were made with each restorative material (Equia Fil-GC Corporation and Z350-3M). Evaluations occurred at 6 and 12 months by the criteria of ART and the USPHS modified. Data were analyzed by Mann-Whitney, chi-square, Fisher’s exact, chi-square tests with linear trend and logistic regression by enter method (p < 0.050). The Kaplan-Meier test evaluated the survival rates of the restorations. The log-rank test compared the survival curves.

Results

Regardless of the evaluation criteria used, the success rates of ART restorations were 98.7% (6 months) and 95.8% (12 months) and for composite resins were 100% (6 months) and 98.7% (12 months), with no statistical difference of restoration groups (p > 0.050). Survival rates for restorations, regardless of the evaluation criteria used, are the same as the success rates, with the exception of ART restorations at 12 months of follow-up (94.8%).

Conclusion

No differences in the success rates of class II restorations of ART compared to resin composite, in permanent teeth, were observed after 12 months.

Clinic significant

HVGIC can safely be used to restore proximal cavities in permanent teeth up to 12 months.

Keywords

Glass ionomer cement Composite resin Posterior teeth Permanent dentition Atraumatic restorative treatment Clinical trial 

Notes

Funding

The work was supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, grant 2014/01626–3).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Minamata Convention on Mercury. Text and Annexes. Oct. 2013. p. 48. Available from: http://www.mercuryconvention.org/Convention/tabid/3426/language/en-US/Default.aspx. Cited 2017. Accessed 12 Aug 2018
  2. 2.
    Ferracane J, Fisher J, Eisele JL, Fox CH (2013) Ensuring the global availability of high-quality dental restorative materials. Adv Dent Res 25:41–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ferracane JL (2011) Resin composite-state of the art. Dent Mater 27:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR (2013) Phillips - Materiais Dentários, 12th edn. Elsevier, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M et al (2005) A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 84:118–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitao J et al (2007) Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc 138:775–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rasines Alcaraz MG, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, Davis D, Iheozor-Ejiofor Z (2014) Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3):Cd005620Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW (2016) A review of glass-ionomer cements for clinical dentistry J Funct Biomater 7(3)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Amorim RG, Leal SC, Frencken JE (2012) Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 16:429–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Molina GF, Cabral RJ, Mazzola I, Lascano LB, Frencken JE (2013) Mechanical performance of encapsulated restorative glass-ionomer cements for use with atraumatic restorative treatment (ART). J Appl Oral Sci 21:243–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barata TJE, Bresciani E, Cestari Fagundes T, Gigo Cefaly DF, Pereira Lauris JR, Lima Navarro MF (2008) Fracture resistance of Class II glass-ionomer cement restorations. Am J Dent 21:163–167Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Navarro MFL, Fernandes E, Freitas MCCDA, Oltramari-Navarro PVP, Menezes-Silva R, Wang L, Lauris JRP (2018) Fracture strength of Class II ART restorations with proximal retention in the Brazilian Dental Science (In Press)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V (2015) Failure rate of direct high-viscosity glass-ionomer versus hybrid resin composite restorations in posterior permanent teeth - a systematic review. Open Dent J 9:438–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cefaly DFG, Barata TJE, Bresciani E, Fagundes TC, Navarro MFL (2013) Clinical evaluation of multiple-surface ART restorations: three-year follow-up. Braz Dent Sci 16:33–40Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Demarco FF, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ (2012) Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 28:87–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frencken JE, de Souza AL, van der Sanden WJ, Bronkhorst EM, Leal SC (2013) The caries assessment and treatment (CAST) instrument. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 41:e71–e77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frencken JE, Pilot T, Songpaisan Y, Phantumvanit P (1996) Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): rationale, technique, and development. J Public Health Dent 56:135–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zanata RL, Fagundes TC, Freitas MC, Lauris JR, Navarro MF (2011) Ten-year survival of ART restorations in permanent posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig 15:265–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ainamo J, Bay I (1975) Problems and proposals for recording gingivitis and plaque. Int Dent J 25:229–235PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Frencken JE, Holmgren CJ, van Palenstein H (2002) WHO: basic package of oral care. WHO Collaborating Centre for Oral Health Care Planning and Future Scenarios, Nijmegen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holmgren CJ, Roux D, Domejean S (2013) Minimal intervention dentistry: part 5. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART)--a minimum intervention and minimally invasive approach for the management of dental caries. Br Dent J 214:11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dorri M, Martinez-Zapata MJ, Walsh T, Marinho VC, Sheiham Deceased A, Zaror C (2017) Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:Cd008072PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Molina GF, Faulks D, Mazzola I, Mulder J, Frencken JE (2014) One year survival of ART and conventional restorations in patients with disability. BMC Oral Health 14:49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Molina GF, Faulks D, Mazzola I, Cabral RJ, Mulder J, Frencken JE (2018) Three-year survival of ART high-viscosity glass-ionomer and resin composite restorations in people with disability. Clin Oral Investig 22:461–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gouvêa CVD, Couto CF, Souza FN, Sales PVT, Silva LE, Barros RN (2008) Study of the thermalcycling effect on the fracture strength of a nanoparticle composite resin and two microhybrid composite resins. Odontologia Clín Científ 7:321–324Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lopes LS, Calazans FS, Hidalgo R, Buitrago LL, Gutierrez F, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Barceleiro MO (2016) Six-month follow-up of cervical composite restorations placed with a new universal adhesive system: a randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent 41(5):465–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dulgergil CT, Soyman M, Civelek A (2005) Atraumatic restorative treatment with resin-modified glass ionomer material: short-term results of a pilot study. Med Princ Pract 14:277–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lopez N, Simpser-Rafalin S, Berthold P (2005) Atraumatic restorative treatment for prevention and treatment of caries in an underserved community. Am J Public Health 95(8):1338–1339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kemoli AM, van Amerongen WE, Opinya G (2009) Influence of the experience of operator and assistant on the survival rate of proximal ART restorations: two-year results. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 10(4):227–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    SB Brasil (2010) Pesquisa Nacional de Saúde Bucal: resultados principais/Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Atenção à Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Brasília (DF): Ministério da Saúde; 2012Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Louw AJ, Sarvan I, Chikte UM, Honkala E (2002) One-year evaluation of atraumatic restorative treatment and minimum intervention techniques on primary teeth. Sadj 57:366–371PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Frencken JE, van Amerongen WE (2008) The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach to manage dental caries. In: Fejerskov O, Kidd E (eds) Dental caries: the disease and its management. Blackwell, Oxford, p 439Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Frencken JE (2014) The state-of-the-art of ART restorations. Dent Update 41:218–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Leal SC, Abreu DM, Frencken JE (2009) Dental anxiety and pain related to ART. J Appl Oral Sci 17:84–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kemoli AM, van Amerongen WE, Opinya GN (2010) Short communication: influence of different isolation methods on the survival of proximal ART restorations in primary molars after two years. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 11:136–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang Y, Li C, Yuan H, Wong MC, Zou J, Shi Z et al (2016) Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:Cd009858PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Frencken JE, Makoni F, Sithole WD (1996) Atraumatic restorative treatment and glass-ionomer sealants in a school oral health programme in Zimbabwe: evaluation after 1 year. Caries Res 30:428–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    da Silva RP, Meneghim MC, Correr AB, Pereira AC, Ambrosano GM (2012) Variations in caries diagnosis and treatment recommendations and their impacts on the costs of oral health care. Community Dent Health 29(1):25–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Frencken JE, Flohil KA, de Baat C (2014) Atraumatic restorative treatment in relation to pain, discomfort and dental treatment anxiety. Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd 121:388–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Frencken JE, Holmgren CJ (2004) ART: a minimal intervention approach to manage dental caries. Dent Update 31:295–8, 301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Frencken JE, Taifour D, van’t Hof MA (2006) Survival of ART and amalgam restorations in permanent teeth of children after 6.3 years. J Dent Res 85:622–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjör IA, Peters M, Rousson V, Randall R, Schmalz G, Tyas M, Vanherle G (2007) Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 11:5–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Casagrande L, Seminario AT, Correa MB, Werle SB, Maltz M, Demarco FF, Araujo FB (2017) Longevity and associated risk factors in adhesive restorations of young permanent teeth after complete and selective caries removal: a retrospective study. Clin Oral Investig 21:847–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Holmgren CJ, Lo EC, Hu D, Wan H (2000) ART restorations and sealants placed in Chinese school children--results after three years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 28:314–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mallow PK, Durward CS, Klaipo M (1998) Restoration of permanent teeth in young rural children in Cambodia using the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique and Fuji II glass ionomer cement. Int J Paediatr Dent 8(1):35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mickenautsch S, Frencken JE, van’t HM (2007) Atraumatic restorative treatment and dental anxiety in outpatients attending public oral health clinics in South Africa. J Public Health Dent 67:179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hermosillo VH, Quintero LE, Guerrero ND, Suarez DD, Hernandez MJ, Holmgren CJ (2009) The implementation and preliminary evaluation of an ART strategy in Mexico: a country example. J Appl Oral Sci 17:114–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rafael Menezes-Silva
    • 1
    Email author
  • S. R. M. Velasco
    • 2
  • R. S. Bastos
    • 3
  • G. Molina
    • 4
  • H. M. Honório
    • 3
  • J. E. Frencken
    • 5
  • M. F. L. Navarro
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Dental Materials, Endodontics and Operative DentistryBauru School of DentistryBauruBrazil
  2. 2.Public Health FacultyUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Orthodontics and Public HealthBauru School of DentistryBauruBrazil
  4. 4.Department of Dental Materials, School of DentistryNational University of CórdobaCórdobaArgentina
  5. 5.Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic DentistryRadboud University Medical CentreNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations