Two decades of ART: improving on success through further research

Holmgren, Christopher J.; Figueredo, Márcia Cançado

doi:10.1590/s1678-77572009000700020

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All 1 st authors of published papers on ART, with workable email addresses, were approached and were asked what they considered to be the future research priorities for ART. The findings have been reported by Holmgren and Figueiredo 12 (2010). By the 1 st of December 2009, Pubmed contained 178 published articles on ART, of which 172 are related to the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment approach.…”

Section: Highlights: Research Agenda For Artsupporting

confidence: 88%

Evolution of the the ART approach: highlights and achievements

Frencken¹

2009

J. Appl. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) was initiated in the mid-eighties in Tanzania in response to an inappropriately functioning community oral health programme that was based on western health care models and western technology. The approach has evolved to its present standing as an effective minimal intervention approach mainly because the originators anticipated the great potential of ART to alleviate inequality in oral health care, and because they recognised the need to carry out research to investigate its effectiveness and applicability. Twenty-five years later, ART was accepted by the World Health Organisation (1994) and the FDI World Dental Federation (2002). It is included in textbooks on cariology, restorative dentistry and minimal intervention dentistry. It is being systematically introduced into public oral health service systems in a number of low- and middle income countries. Private practitioners use it. Many publications related to aspects of ART have been published and many more will follow. To achieve quality results with ART one has to attend well-conducted and sufficiently long training courses, preferably in combination with other caries preventive strategies. ART should, therefore, not be considered in isolation and must be part of an evidence-based approach to oral health with a strong foundation based on prevention.

show abstract

Section: Highlights: Research Agenda For Artsupporting

confidence: 88%

Evolution of the the ART approach: highlights and achievements

Frencken¹

2009

J. Appl. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of these consequences, the latter is especially apparent with regard to glass-ionomer cement (GIC)-based fissure sealants [20], despite the fact that systematic reviews have found no difference between the caries-preventive effect of GIC and that of resin-based sealants [26, 27]. For these reasons, it has been repeatedly argued that: (i) biological outcomes should take precedence over mechanical ones; (ii) because sealants are placed in pits and fissures in order to prevent the onset of caries manifestation or to arrest it, the true outcome of such intervention should therefore be expressed in terms of how well such intervention has managed to achieve this objective [35, 36]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retention Loss of Resin Based Fissure Sealants - a Valid Predictor for Clinical Outcome?

Mickenautsch¹,

Yengopal²

2013

TODENTJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:The null-hypothesis that retention loss of resin fissure sealants predicts caries manifestation no more accurately than random values was tested. Methods:Systematic reviews were checked and electronic databases searched for clinical trials. Trials reporting on the retention of resin sealants and caries occurrence in permanent molar teeth, with minimum 24-month follow-up period, were included. Extracted data: number of sealed teeth, number of teeth without completely retained sealants, number of sealed teeth with caries. The number of teeth with complete sealant retention and absence of carious lesions/cavities was calculated; the predictive outcomes: true/false positive; false/true negative were established. Random values were generated as control-data. Diagnostic Odds ratios (DOR) were computed and tested for statistical difference. Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic curves were plotted. Results:95 trials were found. Median DOR values were 1.21 and 0.28 for test- and control data, respectively. Wilcoxon test (z = 0.56; p = 0.58) and Sign test (z = 1.38; p = 0.17) results were statistically non-significant. The null-hypothesis was not rejected.Conclusions:Predictions based on the retention loss of resin sealants, regarding caries manifestation, was no more accurate than random guesses. Sealant retention loss appears not to be a valid predictor for clinical outcome.

show abstract

“…In addition to being a well-accepted dental caries management approach in children 2 , 10 , the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) has been recommended as a possible treatment protocol for use amongst people with disabilities 12 , 17 . It was thought that ART could overcome some of the problems mentioned above in treating people with disabilities, because it only uses hand instruments, which are not noisy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanical performance of encapsulated restorative glass-ionomer cements for use with Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART)

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach was suggested to be a suitable method to treat enamel and dentine carious lesions in patients with disabilities. The use of a restorative glass-ionomer with optimal mechanical properties is, therefore, very important.Objective:To test the null-hypotheses that no difference in diametral tensile, compressive and flexural strengths exists between: (1) The EQUIA system and (2) The Chemfil Rock (encapsulated glass-ionomers; test materials) and the Fuji 9 Gold Label and the Ketac Molar Easymix (hand-mixed conventional glass-ionomers; control materials); (3) The EQUIA system and Chemfil Rock. Material and Methods:Specimens for testing flexural (n=240) and diametral tensile (n=80) strengths were prepared according to standardized specifications; the compressive strength (n=80) was measured using a tooth-model of a class II ART restoration. ANOVA and Tukey B tests were used to test for significant differences between dependent and independent variables. Results:The EQUIA system and Chemfil Rock had significantly higher mean scores for all the three strength variables than the Fuji 9 Gold Label and Ketac Molar Easymix (α=0.05). The EQUIA system had significant higher mean scores for diametral tensile and flexural strengths than the Chemfil Rock (α=0.05). Conclusion:The two encapsulated high-viscosity glass-ionomers had significantly higher test values for diametral tensile, flexural and compressive strengths than the commonly used hand-mixed high-viscosity glass-ionomers.

show abstract

Two decades of ART: improving on success through further research

Cited by 13 publications

References 50 publications

Evolution of the the ART approach: highlights and achievements

Evolution of the the ART approach: highlights and achievements

Retention Loss of Resin Based Fissure Sealants - a Valid Predictor for Clinical Outcome?

Mechanical performance of encapsulated restorative glass-ionomer cements for use with Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About