The Journal of the American Dental Association
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 137, No 11, 1529-1536.
© 2006 American Dental Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ersin, N. K.
Right arrow Articles by Kose, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ersin, N. K.
Right arrow Articles by Kose, T.
Related Collections
Right arrow Restoratives

CLINICAL PRACTICE

JADA Continuing Education

A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach

Results at 24 months



Nazan Kocatas Ersin, PhD, DDS, Umit Candan, DDS, Arzu Aykut, DDS, Özant Önçag, PhD, DDS, Cemal Eronat, PhD, DDS and Timur Kose, PhD, DDS

Background. The authors evaluated the 24-month performance of a packable resin-based composite/dentin bonding system and a high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (GIC) in restorations placed in primary molars with the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach.

Methods. Three dentists placed 419 restorations in 219 children aged 6 through 10 years who had bilateral matched pairs of carious posterior Class I and II primary teeth. They used a split-mouth design to place the two materials, which were assigned randomly to contralateral sides. The authors evaluated the restorations according to U.S. Public Health Service Ryge criteria.

Results. After 24 months, 96.7 percent of the Class I GIC restorations and 91 percent of the resin-based composite restorations survived, while the success rates for the Class II restorations were 76.1 percent and 82 percent for the GIC and resin-based composite restorations, respectively. The survival rate of the Class II resin-based composite restorations was 5.9 percent higher than that of the GIC restorations at the 24-month evaluation, but this difference was not statistically significant. However, the study results showed a statistically significant difference in survival rates between Class I and II restorations for both materials.

Conclusion and Clinical Implications. The two-year clinical performance of both materials was satisfactory for the restoration of Class I and II primary molars using the ART approach.

Key Words: Atraumatic restorative treatment; high-viscosity glass ionomer cement; packable resin-based composite/dentin bonding system







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright©1995-2006 American Dental Association (ADA).
Reproduction or republication strictly prohibited without prior written permission of ADA.