One year Survival Rate of Ketac Molar versus Vitro Molar for Occlusoproximal ART Restorations: a RCT

Abstract

Good survival rates for single-surface Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) restorations have been reported, while multi-surface ART restorations have not shown similar results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival rate of occluso-proximal ART restorations using two different filling materials: Ketac Molar EasyMix (3M ESPE) and Vitro Molar (DFL). A total of 117 primary molars with occluso-proximal caries lesions were selected in 4 to 8 years old children in Barueri city, Brazil. Only one tooth was selected per child. The subjetcs were randomly allocated in two groups according to the filling material. All treatments were performed following the ART premises and all restorations were evaluated after 2, 6 and 12 months. Restoration survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Log-rank test, while Cox regression analysis was used for testing association with clinical factors (α = 5%). There was no difference in survival rate between the materials tested, (HR = 1.60, CI = 0.98-2.62, p = 0.058). The overall survival rate of restorations was 42.74% and the survival rate per group was Ketac Molar = 50,8% and Vitro Molar G2 = 34.5%). Cox regression test showed no association between the analyzed clinical variables and the success of the restorations. After 12 months evaluation, no difference in the survival rate of ART occluso-proximal restorations was found between tested materials.

Does low-cost GIC have the same survival rate as high-viscosity GIC in atraumatic restorative treatments? A RCT

“…The first clinical trials evaluating low-cost GIC were published in 2017. 15,21 In this study, a difference between the two cements (Ketac Molar® and Vitro Molar®) was observed when evaluated after six and twelve months, in that the high-viscosity GIC showed the best performance. Olegário et al 15 evaluated a high-viscosity GIC (Gold Label 9 -GC Corp, St. Paul, USA) and found a higher success rate than the low-cost GIC (Maxxion R FGM, Joinville, Brazil and Vitro Molar® DFL, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil).…”

“…Olegário et al 15 evaluated a high-viscosity GIC (Gold Label 9 -GC Corp, St. Paul, USA) and found a higher success rate than the low-cost GIC (Maxxion R FGM, Joinville, Brazil and Vitro Molar® DFL, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil). However, the study by Pacheco et al 21 showed that there was no significant difference in the survival rate between high-viscosity GIC (Ketac Molar®) and low-cost GIC (Vitro Molar®) after 12 months. The results of the latter study contrast with those observed in the present study, probably because only small-to medium-sized proximal occlusal cavities were included in their study, and because the size of our sample was larger.…”

“…The main failure was partial or total loss of the restoration. After 12 months, failure rates of 17.8% 21,26 In this study, the children who did not cooperate to ensure adequate performance of the technique did not participate in the sample. The characteristics of lower height and lower mineral content of the primary tooth can also be pointed out as having less success using the ART technique, when there was involvement of multiple faces.…”

“…The characteristics of lower height and lower mineral content of the primary tooth can also be pointed out as having less success using the ART technique, when there was involvement of multiple faces. 23 ART has become established as a restorative alternative, based on several clinical trials, 15,21,27,28 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. 18,23,29 It is, therefore, a viable option to control dental caries in preschool children, in situations of social vulnerability, because it is a simple, relatively inexpensive implementation technique that can be performed in a school setting.…”

“…15,16 However, there is no consensus regarding the most suitable restorative material for use in primary teeth, 17,18,19,20 and few controlled clinical trials have been performed by dentists. 21 Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a low-cost GIC indicated for ART in primary teeth, compared with that of a high-viscosity GIC.…”