We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Quintessence International
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Quintessence Int 33 (2002), No. 1     1. Jan. 2002
Quintessence Int 33 (2002), No. 1  (01.01.2002)

Page 17-21


Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars: One-year results
Yip, Hak-Kong / Smales, Roger J. / Yu, Chang
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the success rates of glass-ionomer cement restorations placed with the atraumatic restorative treatment approach and conventional cavity preparation methods. Method and materials: Two encapsulated, high-strength, esthetic conventional glass-ionomer cements were placed in 82 Class I and 53 Class II atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations, and an encapsulated amalgam alloy was placed in 32 Class I conventional preparations, in vital primary molars of 60 Chinese children aged 7 to 9 years. Results: The atraumatic restorative treatment preparations, made with hand instruments only, took approximately 50% longer to complete than did the preparations completed with conventional rotary instrumentation. After 1 year, there were no amalgam failures. For the glass-ionomer cement restorations, when the atraumatic restorative treatment method was used, significantly better survival rates were found for Class I (92.9%) than for Class II (64.7%) cavity preparations. There was also a strong trend for relatively better survival rates for the conventional cavity preparation method (86.7%) than for the atraumatic restorative treatment (64.7%) method for Class II cavity preparations. However, both the atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional methods appeared equally effective for Class I preparations. Conclusion: In a clinic setting, the use of atraumatic restorative treatment hand instruments for cavity preparation is more time consuming, and the method may also provide less mechanical retention and/or bulk of glass-ionomer cement for some Class II preparations in primary molars than does the use of conventional rotary instruments.