Effectiveness of Single-surface ART Restorations in the Permanent Dentition: A Meta-analysis

Abstract

Over the past few years, there has been an increase in the number of studies reporting on various aspects of the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach. Five randomized clinical trials in which ART restorations with glass ionomers were compared with amalgam restorations in permanent teeth for a maximum period of 3 yrs constituted the database. This meta-analysis divided the publications into ‘early’ (1987–1992) and ‘late’ (1995-) studies on the basis of improvements in the approach. The analysis showed that, in the ‘early’ studies, single-surface amalgam restorations survived statistically significantly longer than comparable ART restorations after 1, 2, and 3 yrs. This trend did not continue into the late group of studies; no statistically significant difference between the 2 types of restorations was found. Based on the available data, it appears that there is no difference in survival results between single-surface ART restorations and amalgam restorations in permanent teeth over the first 3 yrs.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Frencken JE, Makoni F, Sithole WD -1996a-. Atraumatic restorative treatment and glass-ionomer sealants in a school oral health programme in Zimbabwe; evaluation after 1 year. Caries Res 30:428–433.

Frencken JE, Pilot T, Songpaisan Y, Phantumvanit P -1996b-. Atraumatic restorative treatment -ART-: rationale, technique and development. J Public Health Dent 56:135–140.

Frencken JE, Makoni F, Sithole WD, Hackenitz E -1998a-. Three-year survival of one-surface ART restorations and glass-ionomer sealants in a school oral health programme in Zimbabwe. Caries Res 32:119–126.

Frencken JE, Makoni F, Sithole WD -1998b-. ART restorations and glass ionomer sealants in Zimbabwe: survival after 3 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 26:372–381.

Gao W, Peng D, Smales RJ, Yip KH -2003-. Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional restorative procedures in a hospital clinic: evaluation after 30 months. Quintessence Int 34:31–37.

Ho TF, Smales RJ, Fang DT -1999-. A 2-year clinical study of two glass ionomer cements used in the atraumatic restorative treatment -ART- technique. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 27:195–201.

Holmgren CJ, Lo EC, Hu DY, Wan H -2000-. ART restorations and sealants placed in Chinese school children—results after three years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 28:314–320.

Kalf-Scholte SM, van Amerongen WE, Smith AJ, van Haastrecht HJ -2003-. Atraumatic restorative treatment -ART-: a three-year clinical study in Malawi—comparison of conventional amalgam and ART restorations. J Public Health Dent 63:99–103.

Lo EC, Holmgren CJ -2001-. Provision of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment -ART- restorations to Chinese pre-school children—a 30 month evaluation. Int J Paediatr Dent 11:3–10.

10.

Louw AJ, Sarvan I, Chikte UM, Honkala E -2002-. One-year evaluation of atraumatic restorative treatment and minimal intervention techniques on primary teeth. S Afr Dent J 57:366–371.

11.

Mandari GJ, Truin GJ, van ’t Hof MA, Frencken JE -2001-. Effectiveness of three minimal intervention approaches for managing dental caries: survival of restorations after 2 years. Caries Res 35:90–94.

12.

Mandari GJ, Frencken JE, van ’t Hof MA -2003-. Six-year success rates of occlusal amalgam and glass-ionomer restorations placed using three minimal intervention approaches. Caries Res 37:246–253.

13.

Mickenautsch S, Rudolph MJ, Ogunbodede EO, Frencken JE -1999-. The impact of the ART approach on the treatment profile in a Mobile Dental System -MDS- in South Africa. Int Dent J 49:132–138.

14.

Mjör IA, Gordan VV -1999-. A review of atraumatic restorative treatment -ART-. Int Dent J 49:127–131.

15.

Phantumvanit P, Songpaisan Y, Pilot T, Frencken JE -1996-. Atraumatic restorative treatment -ART-: a three-year community field trial in Thailand-survival of one-surface restorations in the permanent dentition. J Public Health Dent 56:141–145.

16.

Rahimtoola S, van Amerongen E -2002-. Comparison of two tooth saving preparation techniques for one-surface cavities. ASDC J Dent Child 69:16–26.

17.

Rahimtoola S, van Amerongen E, Maher R, Groen H -2000-. Pain related to different ways of minimal intervention in the treatment of small caries lesions. ASDC J Dent Child 67:123–127.

18.

Schriks MC, van Amerongen WE -2003-. Atraumatic perspective of ART. Psychological and physiological aspects of treatment with and without rotary instruments. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 31:15–20.

19.

Smales RJ, Gao W, Ho FT -1997-. In vitro evaluation of sealing pits and fissures with newer glass-ionomer cements developed for the ART technique. J Clin Pediatr Dent 21:321–323.

20.

Smith AJ, Chimimba PD, Kalf-Scholte S, Bouma J -1990-. Clinical pilot study on new dental filling materials and preparation procedures in developing countries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 18:309–312.

21.

Taifour D, Frencken JE, Beiruti N, van ’t Hof MA, Truin GJ, van Palenstein Helderman WH -2003-. Comparison between restorations in the permanent dentition produced by hand and rotary instrumentation—survival after 3 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 31:122–128.

22.

Tyas MJ, Anusavice KJ, Frencken JE, Mount GJ -2000-. Minimal intervention dentistry—a review. FDI commission project 1–97. Int Dent J 50:1–12.

23.

Yip HK, Smales RJ, Ngo HC, Tay FR, Chu FCS -2001-. Selection of restorative materials for the atraumatic restorative treatment -ART- approach: a review. Spec Care Dentist 21:216–221.