<scp>ART</scp> is an alternative for restoring occlusoproximal cavities in primary teeth – evidence from an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis

Tedesco, Tamara Kerber; Calvo, Ana Flávia Bissoto; Lenzi, Tathiane Larissa; Hesse, Daniela; Guglielmi, Camila de Almeida Brandão; Camargo, Lívia Arantes; Gimenez, Thaís; Braga, Mariana Minatel; Raggio, Daniela Prócida

doi:10.1111/ipd.12252

Cited by 68 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The success rates of Ketac Molar (3M ESPE) and Vitro Molar (Nova DFL) were 50.85% and 34.48%, respectively. Although, the overall survival rate found is lower than that reported by two meta-analysis, 9,10 we can observe that there is a great heterogeneity between the studies, even with inferior survival rates (30% after 1 year). 9 Even though the values between the materials were numerically different, no statistical difference (p = 0.058) was observed in the first year of follow-up.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 67%

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

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 67%

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

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…35 It is important to highlight that high-viscosity GIC used following the ART approach have shown similar survival rates in primary molars compared with conventional technique (drilling and restoring and/or hand excavation associated with resin composite, amalgam, or compomer). 36,37 The follow-up period ranged from 12 to 60 months, but most studies followed the patients for 24 months. Therefore, we tried to pool the follow-up periods for analysis in an attempt to not jeopardize any material with longer follow-up.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035775). A comprehensive electronic search without date or language restrictions was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) and Clinical Trials databases up to January 2017, selecting randomized clinical trials that assessed the longevity of at least two different conventional restorative materials performed in primary molars. Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed and relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, amalgam, and composite resin. Risk of bias was low in most studies (45.38% of all items across studies). Pediatric dentists should avoid conventional glass ionomer cement for restoring primary molars.

show abstract

“…Full text retrieval was limited to 52 publications out of which 28 (Appendix ) were excluded due to absence of MA. Final selection identified 24 SRs with MA . The characteristics of the SRs with MA are presented in Table .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical appraisal of methodological quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analysis in Paediatric Dentistry journals

Jayaraman

Nagendrababu

Pulikkotil

et al. 2018

Int J Paed Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

ART is an alternative for restoring occlusoproximal cavities in primary teeth – evidence from an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract: ART restorations have similar survival rate compared to conventional treatment and can be considered an option to restore occlusoproximal cavities in primary molars.

Cited by 68 publications

References 18 publications

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

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

Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis

Critical appraisal of methodological quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analysis in Paediatric Dentistry journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About