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

Moura, Marcoeli Silva de; Sousa, Geovanna Peres de; Brito, Maria Hellen Sâmia Fortes; Silva, Mikaelle Claro Costa; Lima, Marina de Deus Moura de; Moura, Lúcia de Fátima Almeida de Deus; Lima, Cacilda Castelo Branco

doi:10.1590/1807-3107bor-2019.vol33.0125

Cited by 14 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In a previous meta-analysis, the results showed a 97% success rate after 1 year using high viscosity GIC material for single surface restoration and similar results were recorded in the present study[ 28 ]. High viscosity GIC has more compressive strength and is suitable for posterior teeth, whereas low viscosity GIC is suitable for anterior teeth and has good wetting behavior and aesthetics[ 29 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Twelve-month evaluation of the atraumatic restorative treatment approach for class III restorations: An interventional study

Shivanna

Ganesh²,

Khanagar

et al. 2020

WJCC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) may be appropriate for populations without accessibility and affordability. More data are required regarding the success rate of ART in anterior teeth. AIM To evaluate the clinical performance of restoring class III cavities in anterior teeth of permanent dentition using the ART approach. METHODS A longitudinal interventional field study was carried out at two rural primary health centers, Tumkur district, India. A total of 54 teeth in 39 patients were evaluated for the survival rate of class III restorations in permanent anterior teeth using the ART approach in children and adult populations. Evaluation of ART restoration was carried out using Frencken J criteria, the mean procedure time, patient acceptance and reported pain severity during the ART approach were evaluated using a visual analog scale. Calculation of the cost of ART was also performed. RESULTS The mean time taken to perform the ART procedure was 14.79 ± 5.8 min with the majority of patients reporting only mild pain. At 6 mo follow-up, 72.2% remained in a good state, but this reduced to 27% at 12 mo. The cumulative survival rate of the restorations was 94.4% at 6 mo and 80.9% at 12 mo follow-up. Estimation of the direct cost for a single class III restoration was 186.50 INR (2.64 USD). CONCLUSION ART may be a good comprehensive option for basic oral health care for underserved or inaccessible populations, and preventive care for patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Twelve-month evaluation of the atraumatic restorative treatment approach for class III restorations: An interventional study

Shivanna

Ganesh²,

Khanagar

et al. 2020

WJCC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The characteristics of the 29 randomised controlled clinical trials included in this systematic review are listed in Tables 3 and 4. Among the 29 RCTs, 27 studies included primary molars, 1 study evaluated the clinical performance of crowns in primary incisors (Alaki et al 2020), and one study included anterior and posterior primary teeth (Moura et al 2020). Studies included between 25 and 568 children aged 1.5-11 years.…”

Section: Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twenty-one studies were rated as having a high risk of selection bias based on inadequate information provided about the randomisation process and/or the allocation sequence concealment. The remaining 8 studies were of low risk of bias (Alaki et al 2020;Cavalheiro et al 2020;Dermata et al 2018;Hesse et al 2016;Lenzi et al 2017;Moura et al 2020;Olegario et al 2019Olegario et al , 2020. A computer-generated randomisation was applied in several studies (Alaki et al 2020;Cavalheiro et al 2020;Dermata et al 2018;Lenzi et al 2017;Olegario et al 2019Olegario et al , 2020.…”

Section: Bias Arising From the Randomisation Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a systematic review

Amend

Boutsiouki

Bekes³

et al. 2022

Eur Arch Paediatr Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To systematically search the available evidence and evaluate the clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for restoration of carious primary teeth. The findings aimed to support the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (EAPD) guidelines development. Methods Literature search was performed by searching 4 electronic databases for eligible randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth up to December 28th, 2020. Quality assessment was performed with the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). Results Of 1685 identified articles 29 RCTs were finally deemed as eligible for inclusion. Annual failure rates were: Amalgam 1–28%; atraumatic restorative treatment 1.2–37.1%; glass-ionomer cement (GIC) 7.6–16.6%, metal-reinforced GIC 29.9%, resin-modified GIC 1.9–16.9%, high-viscosity GIC 2.9–25.6%; glass carbomer ≤ 46.2%; compomer 0–14.7%; composite resin (CR) 0–19.5%, bulk-fill CR 0–16.9%; zirconia crowns 3.3%, composite strip crowns 15%, and preformed metal crowns (Hall-Technique) 3.1%. Secondary caries, poor marginal adaptation, loss of retention, and fracture of restoration were reported as reasons for failure. Four studies were evaluated at unclear and 25 at high risk of bias. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity, and the diversity of tested materials across included studies did not allow for meta-analyses. Conclusions Within the limitations of this systematic review, namely, the heterogeneity and the overall high risk of bias among included studies, clear recommendations based on solid evidence for the best restorative approach in primary teeth cannot be drawn. There is a need for future thoroughly implemented RCTs evaluating restorations in primary teeth to close this knowledge gap.

show abstract

“…50 However, the success of this strategy is directly dependent on the restorative material used. Two clinical trials concluded that ART restoration of primary molars using low-cost GIC presented lower success rates over 1-2 years of follow-up when compared to conventional HV-GIC, 51,52 suggesting that the overall cost of treatment may be increased by the need for re-interventions and replacement of defective restorations. 52 These studies suggest that ART restoration using a high-quality material represented a suitable treatment option for coronal caries lesion management, particularly for single-surface restorations.…”

Section: Management Of Cavitated Dentine Lesionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…summary of studies examining caries management in LACC 22,45,46,48,51,52,53,56,58,59,64,65,66,67,68,69,71,72,73 Figure …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of dental caries lesions in Latin American and Caribbean countries

Pozos‐Guillén

Molina

Soviero³

et al. 2021

Braz. oral res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Caries management at the lesion level is dependent on the lesion activity, the presence of a cavitation (either cleanable or non-cleanable), and lesion depth as evaluated via radiographic examination. A variety of non-invasive, micro-invasive, and minimally invasive treatment (with or without restoration) options are available for primary and permanent teeth. Non-invasive strategies include oral hygiene instructions, dietary counseling, and personal as well as professional use of fluoridated products that reduce demineralization and increase re-mineralization. Micro-invasive procedures include the use of occlusal resin sealants and resin infiltrants, while minimally invasive strategies comprise those related to selective removal of caries tissues and placement of restorations. Deep caries management includes indirect pulp capping, while exposed pulp may be treated using direct pulp capping and partial or complete pulpotomy. The aim of the present study was to review available evidence on recommended preventive and restorative strategies for caries lesions in Latin American/Caribbean countries, and subsequently develop evidence-based recommendations for treatment options that take into consideration material availability, emphasize ways to adapt available treatments to the local context, and suggest ways in which dentists and health systems can adopt these treatments.

show abstract

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

Cited by 14 publications

References 23 publications

Twelve-month evaluation of the atraumatic restorative treatment approach for class III restorations: An interventional study

Twelve-month evaluation of the atraumatic restorative treatment approach for class III restorations: An interventional study

Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a systematic review

Management of dental caries lesions in Latin American and Caribbean countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About