Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
Quintessence International
QI Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Accepted Manuscripts
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitterYouTube
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: QI
Quintessence International

Edited by Eli Eliav

ISSN 0033-6572 (print) • ISSN 1936-7163 (online)

Publication:
January 2002
Volume 33 , Issue 1

Back
Share Abstract:

Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars: One-year results

Hak-Kong Yip, BDS, PhD, MEd/Roger J. Smales, MDS, DDSc/Chang Yu, BDS/

Pages: 17-21
PMID: 11887531

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the success rates of glass-ionomer cement restorations placed with the atraumatic restorative treatment approach and conventional cavity preparation methods. Method and materials: Two encapsulated, high-strength, esthetic conventional glass-ionomer cements were placed in 82 Class I and 53 Class II atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations, and an encapsulated amalgam alloy was placed in 32 Class I conventional preparations, in vital primary molars of 60 Chinese children aged 7 to 9 years. Results: The atraumatic restorative treatment preparations, made with hand instruments only, took approximately 50% longer to complete than did the preparations completed with conventional rotary instrumentation. After 1 year, there were no amalgam failures. For the glass-ionomer cement restorations, when the atraumatic restorative treatment method was used, significantly better survival rates were found for Class I (92.9%) than for Class II (64.7%) cavity preparations. There was also a strong trend for relatively better survival rates for the conventional cavity preparation method (86.7%) than for the atraumatic restorative treatment (64.7%) method for Class II cavity preparations. However, both the atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional methods appeared equally effective for Class I preparations. Conclusion: In a clinic setting, the use of atraumatic restorative treatment hand instruments for cavity preparation is more time consuming, and the method may also provide less mechanical retention and/or bulk of glass-ionomer cement for some Class II preparations in primary molars than does the use of conventional rotary instruments.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
  © 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog