Home | About Us | Editorial Board | Current Issue | Archives | Search | Instructions | Subscription | Feedback | e-Alerts | Login 
Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry Official publication of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry
 Users Online: 1069  
 
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size


 
  Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 35  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 167-173
 

The effect of atraumatic restorative treatment on adhesive restorations for dental caries in deciduous molars


1 Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil
2 Department of Dentistry, State University of Paraíba, Campina Grande, Brazil
3 Department of Pediatric Dentistry, University of Pernambuco, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil

Date of Web Publication10-May-2017

Correspondence Address:
Ana Flávia Granville-Garcia
State University of Paraíba, Street Juvêncio Arruda s/n, Bodoncogó, Campina Grande, PB
Brazil
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_98_16

Rights and Permissions

 

   Abstract 

Background: Minimal invasive approaches to managing caries, such as partial caries removal techniques and atraumatic restorative treatment (ART), are showing increasing evidence of improved outcomes over the conventional complete caries removal. Objective: To evaluate clinically and radiographically the effect of ART on restorations using restorative cement and glass ionomer cement (GIC) for dental caries in the deciduous molars of children aged between 4 and 8 years. Settings and Design: The study design was a split-mouth, randomized, blind clinical trial. Materials and Methods: Eighty-six patients had 108 restorations placed with GIC (Ketac Molar Easy Mix – 3M ESPE) and 108 restorations placed with composite resin (CR) (Filtek Z250 – 3M ESPE). The restorations were assessed by means of images obtained with a digital camera and periapical radiographs at baseline and after 12 months of follow-up. Statistical Analysis: The Student's t-test, Pearson Chi-squared test, and Bonferroni paired comparison test were used to evaluate the differences in proportions and correlations between the variables. Results: After 12 months of follow-up, the restorations were considered clinically successful in 89.3% of cases and radiographically successful in 80.5% of cases. There was statistical difference neither between the two restorative materials used nor between the numbers of restored surfaces. Conclusions: GIC and CR can be used successfully for restorations of one or two dental surfaces after ART.


Keywords: Atraumatic restorative treatment, composite resin, deciduous teeth, glass ionomer cement, randomized clinical trial


How to cite this article:
de Medeiros Serpa EB, Clementino MA, Granville-Garcia AF, Rosenblatt A. The effect of atraumatic restorative treatment on adhesive restorations for dental caries in deciduous molars. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2017;35:167-73

How to cite this URL:
de Medeiros Serpa EB, Clementino MA, Granville-Garcia AF, Rosenblatt A. The effect of atraumatic restorative treatment on adhesive restorations for dental caries in deciduous molars. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent [serial online] 2017 [cited 2019 Sep 21];35:167-73. Available from: http://www.jisppd.com/text.asp?2017/35/2/167/206043



   Introduction Top


Tooth decay is one of the most globally prevalent chronic childhood diseases and is a major problem both from a public health perspective and for individual families who have to deal with a young child suffering from dental pain. This condition often goes untreated in young children. Carious lesions are among the major oral health problems of preschool children even though children lose the first set of teeth in this age group.[1],[2],[3],[4]

Minimal invasive approaches to managing caries, such as partial caries removal techniques and atraumatic restorative treatment (ART), are showing increasing evidence of improved outcomes over the conventional complete caries removal. There is also increasing interest in techniques where no caries is removed.[5] These techniques were based on scientific findings of partial caries removal with minimally invasive dentistry: the removal of demineralized dentin using hand tools and rotary equipment, without the need for local anesthesia; disinfection of the cavity; and tooth restoration.[6],[7]

It has therefore become possible to apply more conservative dentistry, preserving more dental tissues than in the past.[8] ART has great benefits as an effective restorative technique; a set preserves more dental tissue than conventional dental treatment. In addition, it avoids the use of rotary equipment and dental anesthesia, which are known to contribute to anxiety during dental treatment.[9],[10]

Since this technique is potentially, particularly useful with small children, further research is required to evaluate the quality of such restorations, especially when placed in tooth cavities on two surfaces.[11],[12] The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effect of ART on restorations using different materials (restorative cement and glass ionomer cement [GIC]) for dental caries in the deciduous molars through a clinical trial.


   Materials and Methods Top


Sample characteristics

The procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation and with the Declaration of Helsinki, 1975, as revised in 2000. Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil. Written informed consent was obtained from the parents of each child. This study was conducted within the consort templates for clinical trial.

This was a clinical, randomized, controlled trial. The evaluations were performed after a12-month interval.

The sample consisted of 216 primary carious molars in dentin, affecting 86 patients aged 4 to 8 years of both genders. The sample consisted of children who were attended at the clinic for dental examinations; therefore, they are characterized as convenience samples.[13]

We selected children with bilateral pairs of the deciduous molars with carious dentin lesion. These caries lesions should be deep. Thus, at least one restoration was performed with GIC from one hemi-arch and a restoration of composite resin (CR) was performed with equal surface number on the other hemi-arch in each child. This type of study, called a split-mouth study, is more effective in minimizing selection bias than forming parallel groups.[14]

Eligibility criteria

The inclusion criteria were (1) age 4–8 years of age, (2) free of any systemic disease, (3) free of any current use of medications, (4) any history of spontaneous toothache, and (5) at least two teeth with carious lesions in dentin.

The tooth selected for the treatment must not have any physiological or pathological mobility, and its antagonist should be present. No dropouts/losses of patients were found at the 12-month recall evaluation.

Loss of the sample was considered as children who did not present the consent form signed by parents or guardians and children who were not found after 12 months.

Clinical intervention

The groups were established according to the tooth surface to be treated and the type of restorative material used and were selected by random.

The selection of patients consisted of a convenient sample of children who attended the clinic for dental checkups. The split-mouth approach was employed for the allocation of the two restorative materials. Intraoral assignment of the material to the teeth was chosen by coin toss.[15] The number and combinations of GIC and CR restorations per child were determined as defined for the intervention groups as follows:

  1. Group 1 - Cavity placed on one surface and restored with Ketac™ Molar Easy Mix GIC (3M ESPE AG, D-82229 Seefeld, Germany, Lot 199786), 68 teeth, control group
  2. Group 2 - Cavity placed on one surface and restored with Filtek™ Z250 CR (3M ESPE, Dental Products, St. Paul, MN, USA, Lot 4NC), 68 teeth, experimental group
  3. Group 3 - Cavity placed on two surfaces and restored with Ketac™ Molar Easy Mix GIC, 40 teeth, control group
  4. Group 4 - Cavity placed on two surfaces and restored with Filtek™ Z250 CR, 40 teeth, experimental group.


All the procedures were performed by the same dentist with the help of a dental assistant, and the materials were manipulated according to the manufacturer's instructions, in a fully equipped dental clinic.

The technique ART was performed without local anesthesia, and the field was kept dry by a saliva ejector and cotton rolls. Sharp excavators were used to remove the soft decayed tissue. To avoid pulpal exposure in deep cavities, the remaining dentin was left untouched. Color and texture were verified to differentiate contaminated and sclerotic dentin. In the molar teeth with deeper carries, the color and texture of the dentin were observed with the naked eye. The softened dentin was removed. Rigid and darkened dentin was considered sclerotic.

The teeth were conditioned using polyacrylic acid and then washed and dried. In case of restorations involving two tooth surfaces, a previously cut-out and slightly curved 0.5 mm steel matrix was used, adapted to the proximal surface of the tooth, and held in place with a wooden wedge. The GIC was hand-mixed and inserted into the cavity by pressing with a petroleum jelly-coated gloved finger to prevent the formation of bubbles and to improve the adaptation of the cement to the cavity walls.

Excess material was removed with a Hollenback carver. The occlusion was checked with articulating paper, and the restorations were subsequently protected from moisture and dehydration with a protection varnish.[16],[17] The patient was advised not to chew solids for 1 h after the placing of the restoration.

The removal of caries in the experimental group was performed according to the previously described method.

The cavity preparation was etched with 10% phosphoric acid (Bisco, Inc., Itasca, IL, USA), and the adhesive resin system Prime & Bond (Dentsply, Milford DE DE, USA) was applied to the entire cavity in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. All teeth were restored with Z250 CR using the incremental technique, and each increment was polymerized for 40 s. The Dentsply adhesive system was used. Studies show the quality of the Dentsply system.[18],[19] The adhesive system of Dentsply has tertiary butanol as the solvent, while other adhesives researched in the literature show solvent based on water, alcohol, and/or acetone. The function of the solvents facilitates the wetting of the dental surface by the resinous monomers.[20] According to the manufacturer Dentsply, tertiary butanol has some advantages when compared to ethanol, such as greater stability and compatibility.[21]

In case of deep dentinal lesions, a 1–1.5 mm thick layer of calcium hydroxide liner (Dycal, Dentsply, Milford, DE, USA) was applied for pulp protection.

The occlusion of the restorations was adjusted when necessary.

Photographs (digital camera Sony Cybershot) and periapical radiographs (Kodak Insite) were taken for each restored tooth at three intervals: 1 – diagnosis, 2 – immediately after completion of the restoration (baseline), 3 – after 12 months. Each restored tooth also received a specific code only known to the dentist.

The clinical and radiographic criteria used were self-formulated. The images were obtained with the aid of mirrors for intraoral photographs and oral retractors of the restoration. Digital images were saved on compact disks and identified with the restore code. No alteration of the images was carried out that could jeopardize the posterior evaluation. For each restoration, a PowerPoint ® file was organized with its code, containing the sequence of photographs, of the three moments described above. Care was taken to maintain the same frame, same light, and same distance for each photograph.

Clinical data collection

Patient data were collected in two moments: the first part on the day of consent request by interview to the child's parents or guardians about the child's personal data (name, gender, date of birth of the child, name of the address, telephone number, monthly income, maternal education, anamnesis of the general state of the child).

In the second part, the filling of the odontogram was performed. For each tooth that received the intervention, the type of cavity (one or two surfaces), type of dentin (sclerotic or contaminated), restored tooth and the material used (GIC or CR) were recorded. This was identified by a number. After 12 months, a new clinical record with a new odontogram was completed, where the changes observed were noted in relation to recurrence of caries, new carious lesions, and pulp complications.

A 12-month evaluation was carried out. One calibrated evaluator (PhD in Pediatric Dentistry), who played no part in the intervention trial, examined the quality of the photographs at a magnification of ×16. The periapical radiographs were also examined, with an interval of 15 days between the first and the second examinations, using a PowerPoint file containing 26 teeth to establish intraexaminer reliability. The kappa value was 0.90. The evaluator was blind to the type of material used as she/he received precoded photographs and radiographs.

The restorations were considered satisfactory when they scored 0 or 1 by clinical criteria and scored 7 by radiographic criteria. The clinical criteria used for assessing the quality of the restorations were as follows:

  • 0 - Restorations satisfactory: In place, without clinically visible alterations
  • 1 - Restorations satisfactory: In place, little wear, gap without exposure of dentin, not needing repair
  • 2 - Restoration unsatisfactory: In place, waste or rift with dentin exposure, needing repair
  • 3 - Restoration unsatisfactory: Missing; total loss of the restoration
  • 4 - Restoration unsatisfactory: The restoration was replaced
  • 5 - Missing: The tooth was permanently replaced
  • 6 - Dropout: Child not found.


The absence of (1) fistula, edema, and abnormal mobility and (2) pain or sensitivity to pressure was also considered successful outcomes.

The radiographic criteria for assessing the quality of restorations were as follows:

  • 0 - Restoration satisfactory: In place, no progression of radiolucency
  • 1 - Restoration unsatisfactory: In place, presence of radiolucency suggesting secondary caries
  • 2 - Restoration unsatisfactory: In place, presence of radiolucency in the interradicular or periapical regions
  • 3 - Restoration unsatisfactory: Missing; total loss of the restoration
  • 4 - Restoration unsatisfactory: The restoration was replaced
  • 5 - Missing: The tooth was permanently replaced
  • 6 - Dropout: Child not found.


Statistical analysis

For data analysis, EPI Info version 6.04d (CDC, USA) and IBM SPSS Statistics (version 21.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) were used. The effects with respect to the quality of the restorations for the two treatment groups were tested using the Student's t- test, Pearson Chi-square test, and one-way ANOVA test. Paired evaluations were assessed by the Bonferroni paired comparison test. The 95% confidence intervals for success were established based on the binomial distribution. The statistical significance of the data was determined at P ≤ 5%.

The restorations of children not found at the 12-month evaluation (sample loss) and exfoliated teeth were not analyzed.


   Results Top


The study sample consisted of 86 children aged between 4 and 8 years (6.14 median age), of whom 47 (54.7%) were male and 39 (45.3%) were female. The 216 teeth were randomly divided into four groups. The total loss of the sample was 47 teeth (21.75%), and of these, 23 teeth were exfoliated [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Diagram of recruitment, allocation, and tracking and analysis of the clinical study

Click here to view


The majority of children (76.9%) had one pair of molars treated [Table 1]. There were reports of postoperative pain indicative of irreversible pulp pathology in two cases and the presence of fistula in other two teeth, both from Group 3. The majority of teeth had sclerotic dentin (52.8%) as opposed to contaminated dentin (47.2%).
Table 1: Number and percentile distribution of the molars of the children treated at the initial evaluation

Click here to view


The GIC restorations presented more wear than the CRs, with the main failure of the CR restorations being total loss. There was no statistically significant difference in unsatisfactory evaluations between the treatment groups for all the restorations [Table 2] and [Table 3].
Table 2: Clinical evaluation after 12 months according to treatment groups

Click here to view
Table 3: Clinical evaluation after 12 months according to treatment groups categorized

Click here to view


The 12-month clinical success rate of all restorations was 89.9%. [Table 3] shows that there was no statistically significant difference in the successes of restorations using CR and those using glass ionomer and the number of restored surfaces (P = 0.63).

Both radiographic evaluations indicated that there was no statistical difference between the results according to the type of material and the number of restored surfaces. In relation to the radiographic evaluation, the teeth restored with GIC showed more radiolucency, suggesting secondary caries, than those restored with CR [Table 4] and [Table 5].
Table 4: Radiographic evaluation after 12 months according to treatment groups

Click here to view
Table 5: Radiographic evaluation after 12 months according to treatment groups categorized

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


The results showed an acceptable survival rate, and no operator effect over the period investigated (12 months). The dropout rate (2175%) was similar to those reported in literature.[22],[23],[24] The limits of the present study include its small sample size, short evaluation period, and lack of a control group for comparison.

At the 12-month follow-up, the restorations were considered clinically successful in 89.3% and radiographically successful in 80.5% of cases. However, the CR restorations showed better clinical development than the GIC restorations. The viscous consistency of the GIC makes the manipulation and insertion of this material a little complex. This is an important factor in the failure of GIC/ART. These characteristics may lead to incorrect adaptation to the tooth surface, resulting in gaps at the restoration-tooth interface and the loss and replacement of the restoration.[24],[25] In addition, the biomimetic characteristics of GIC are often hampered by their poor mechanical properties.[26],[27],[28]

After 1 year, the treatment with CR was more positive than treatment with GIC. Other studies confirm that these findings as resins are known to have a lower wear resistance, reduced polymerization shrinkage, increased surface hardness, and a higher fracture toughness than those of GIV.[29],[30],[31],[32],[33]

Holmgren and Frencken [34] report that the size of the cavity can also affect the of survival restorations: the larger the cavity, the lower the survival rate of the restoration. This relationship was not found in this study. Restorations placed on a surface or two surfaces with both materials (resin composite [RC] or GIC) responded well. This result may be due to the fact that both materials showed good physical properties, and restorations were placed by the same experienced dentist in a dental clinic environment. This impressive result rate may be due to the absence of fractures, overcontoured marginal integrity, and restored surface texture.[35]

Recurrent caries was not observed in the treated teeth. This can be explained by the protection of the dentin-pulp complex after, or because the use of adhesive RC could have induced better marginal sealing of the restorations, or by the release of fluoride by GIC.[10],[28],[36],[37],[38]

Radiographic evaluation did not reveal a statistically significant difference between the satisfactory results and the type of material used or the number of restored surfaces. The lesion progressed under the restoration in 4.9% of the cases. None of these children had any major complaint regarding the affected teeth. The progression of the lesion in restorations can be attributed to marginal leakage arising from hollow material, poor bonding, cracks in the enamel due to restoration setting stress, or fracture of the tooth substance at the restoration–cavity interface, probably due to unsupported enamel overhangs and moisture contamination.[39],[40] In addition, inadequate cavity conditioning, poor mixing of the restorative material, and inadequate adhesion of the material to the cavity walls can also lead to gaps and consequently to marginal leakages. The presence of restoration-gaps weakens the restoration and makes it susceptible to early failure.[41],[42] Although the operator was adequately prepared and had gained some experience in the technique after training, it is possible that the above-mentioned factors occurred.

The results underline the potential of the ART approach for providing people with restorative care. It is suggested that the ART approach should be largely adopted for restoring dentin lesions on one or two surfaces. Closing bacterial niches is a simple and effective approach for public health program, especially in those countries where the access to traditional treatment is expensive and difficult to obtain for the major part of their population.


   Conclusions Top


The 1-year follow-up evaluation of primary molars subjected to partial caries removal, restored both with GIC and RC, presented excellent outcomes. The results were satisfactory when placed in restorations of one or two dental surfaces after partial caries removal.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Rosenblatt A, Zarzar P. The prevalence of early childhood caries in 12- to 36-month-old children in Recife, Brazil. ASDC J Dent Child 2002;69:319-24.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
Arora A, Scott JA, Bhole S, Do L, Schwarz E, Blinkhorn AS. Early childhood feeding practices and dental caries in preschool children: A multi-centre birth cohort study. BMC Public Health 2011;11:28.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Alkarimi HA, Watt RG, Pikhart H, Jawadi AH, Sheiham A, Tsakos G. Impact of treating dental caries on schoolchildren's anthropometric, dental, satisfaction and appetite outcomes: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health 2012;12:706.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.
Clementino MA, Gomes MC, Pinto-Sarmento TC, Martins CC, Granville-Garcia AF, Paiva SM. Perceived impact of dental pain on the quality of life of preschool children and their families. PLoS One 2015;10:e0130602.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Santamaria R, Innes N. Trial shows partial caries removal is an effective technique in primary molars. Evid Based Dent 2014;15:81-2.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Frencken JE, Songpaisan Y, Phantumvanit P, Pilot T. An atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique: Evaluation after one year. Int Dent J 1994;44:460-4.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Frencken JE, Pilot T, Songpaisan Y, Phantumvanit P. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): Rationale, technique, and development. J Public Health Dent 1996;56:135-40.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Frencken JE, Leal SC, Navarro MF. Twenty-five-year atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach: A comprehensive overview. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16:1337-46.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Gonçalves CF, Silva MV, Costa LR, de Toledo OA. One-year follow-up of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) for dental caries in children undergoing onco hematological treatment: A pragmatic trial. BMC Oral Health 2015:16;127.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Costa LR, Cozac CD, Alves RT, Cortines AA. Tratamiento restaurador atraumatico para niñ±os hospitalizados. Rev Odontopediatr Latinoam 2011;1:160-9.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Mickenautsch S, Grossman E. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): Factors affecting success. J Appl Oral Sci 2006;14:34-6.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Frencken JE, Holmgren CJ. How effective is ART in the management of dental caries? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1999;27:423-30.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Ross KA. Sample Design for Educational Survey Research. Paris, France: International Institute for Educational Planning/United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; 2005. Available from: http://www.unesco.org/iiep/. [Last cited on 2016 Dec 29].  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Foley J, Evans D, Blackwell A. Partial caries removal and cariostatic materials in carious primary molar teeth: A randomised controlled clinical trial. Br Dent J 2004;197:697-701.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Mandari GJ, Frencken JE, van't Hof MA. Six-year success rates of occlusal amalgam and glass-ionomer restorations placed using three minimal intervention approaches. Caries Res 2003;37:246-53.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Bresciani E. Clinical trials with atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) in deciduos and permanent teeth. J Appl Oral Sci 2006;14:14-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Nagem Filho H, Domingues LA. Glass ionomer – Surface protective agents. Cultural Bulletin. Bauru: EDUSC; 2000;29:1-69.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Castillo KA, Costa SR, Barros RM, Guerisoli DM, Figueiredo JL. Tensile strength of adhesive system in dry and wet dentin. Arch Health Invest 2013;2:11-7.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Marchesi G, Frassetto A, Mazzoni A, Apolonio F, Diolosà M, Cadenaro M, et al. Adhesive performance of a multi-mode adhesive system: 1-year in vitro study. J Dent 2014;42:603-12.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Reis AF, Oliveira MT, Giannini M, De Goes MF, Rueggeberg FA. The effect of organic solvents on one-bottle adhesives' bond strength to enamel and dentin. Oper Dent 2003;28:700-6.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: Current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003;28:215-35.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Carvalho TS, Sampaio FC, Diniz A, Bönecker M, Van Amerongen WE. Two years survival rate of class II ART restorations in primary molars using two ways to avoid saliva contamination. Int J Paediatr Dent 2010;20:419-25.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
da Franca C, Colares V, Van Amerongen E. Two-year evaluation of the atraumatic restorative treatment approach in primary molars class I and II restorations. Int J Paediatr Dent 2011;21:249-53.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Bonifacio CC, Hesse D, Bönecker M, Van Loveren C, Van Amerongen WE, Raggio DP. A preliminary clinical trial using flowable glass-ionomer cement as a liner in proximal-ART restorations: The operator effect. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2013;18:e529-32.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Bonifácio CC, Kleverlaan CJ, Raggio DP, Werner A, de Carvalho RC, van Amerongen WE. Physical-mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements indicated for atraumatic restorative treatment. Aust Dent J 2009;54:233-7.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Molina GF, Faulks D, Frencken JE. Suitability of ART approach for managing caries lesions in people with disability – Experts' opinion. Acta Odontol Scand 2013;71:1430-5.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Fabián Molina G, Cabral RJ, Mazzola I, Brain Lascano L, Frencken JE. Biaxial flexural strength of high-viscosity glass-ionomer cements heat-cured with an LED lamp during setting. Biomed Res Int 2013;2013:838460.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Molina GF, Faulks D, Mazzola I, Mulder J, Frencken JE. One year survival of ART and conventional restorations in patients with disability. BMC Oral Health 2014;14:49.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Lo EC, Schwarz E, Wong MC. Arresting dentine caries in Chinese preschool children. Int J Paediatr Dent 1998;8:253-60.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Ribeiro CC, Baratieri LN, Perdigão J, Baratieri NM, Ritter AV. A clinical, radiographic, and scanning electron microscopic evaluation of adhesive restorations on carious dentin in primary teeth. Quintessence Int 1999;30:591-9.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Falster CA, Araujo FB, Straffon LH, Nör JE. Indirect pulp treatment: In vivo outcomes of an adhesive resin system vs. calcium hydroxide for protection of the dentin-pulp complex. Pediatr Dent 2002;24:241-8.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Yu C, Gao XJ, Deng DM, Yip HK, Smales RJ. Survival of glass ionomer restorations placed in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity preparations: 2-year results. Int Dent J 2004;54:42-6.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Menezes JP, Rosenblatt A, Medeiros E. Clinical evaluation of atraumatic restorations in primary molars: A comparison between 2 glass ionomer cements. J Dent Child (Chic) 2006;73:91-7.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Holmgren CJ, Frencken JE. Conclusions from the symposium: Two decades of ART: Success through research. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17:134-6.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Kalf-Scholte SM, van Amerongen WE, Smith AJ, van Haastrecht HJ. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): A three-year clinical study in Malawi – comparison of conventional amalgam and ART restorations. J Public Health Dent 2003;63:99-103.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Miranda LA, Weidlich P, Samuel SM, Maltz M. Fluoride release from restorative materials coated with an adhesive. Braz Dent J 2002;13:39-43.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Murdoch-Kinch CA, McLean ME. Minimally invasive dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134:87-95.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Frencken JE, Holmgren CJ. ART: A minimal intervention approach to manage dental caries. Dent Update 2004;31:295-8, 301.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Kemoli AM, van Amerongen WE, Opinya G. Influence of the experience of operator and assistant on the survival rate of proximal ART restorations: Two-year results. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2009;10:227-32.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
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;11:136-9.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
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;7:85-91.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Kemoli AM, van Amerongen WE. The dilemma of selecting suitable proximal carious lesions in primary molars for restoration using ART technique. Community Dent Health 2011;28:12-6.  Back to cited text no. 42
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 

    

 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Article in PDF (567 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusions
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3811    
    Printed145    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded452    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


Contact us | Sitemap | Advertise | What's New | Copyright and Disclaimer 
  2005 - Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 
Online since 1st May '05