PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of multiple-surface restorations employing 2 different glass ionomer cements (GICs) and the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach in permanent molar teeth. METHODS: This study examined 60 restorations--36 ClassI restorations involving 2 or more tooth surfaces and 24 Class II restorations--that were placed in 46 schoolchildren (9-16 years of age) by 2 dentists using the ART approach. The restorations were randomly divided into 2 groups: (a) 30 cavities were filled with high strength GIC (Ketac Molar-3M ESPE), and (b) 30 cavities were filled with resin-modified GIC (Fuji VIII-GC Corp). Two independent calibrated examiners carried out the evaluations according to ART criteria. The interexaminer kappa was 0.92. Data were submitted to chi-square, McNemar, and Fisher's tests. A difference was statistically significant if P<.05. RESULTS: In a 12-month follow-up, 59 restorations were evaluated. The success rates of the restorations were 100% and 93% for Fuji VIII and Ketac Molar, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between GICs, cavity types, or operators. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a 12-month follow-up evaluation, the clinical performance of the multiple-surface atraumatic restorative treatment restorations of both glass ionomer cements (high-strength and resin-modified) was considered satisfactory with a high success rate.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of multiple-surface restorations employing 2 different glass ionomer cements (GICs) and the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach in permanent molar teeth. METHODS: This study examined 60 restorations--36 Class I restorations involving 2 or more tooth surfaces and 24 Class II restorations--that were placed in 46 schoolchildren (9-16 years of age) by 2 dentists using the ART approach. The restorations were randomly divided into 2 groups: (a) 30 cavities were filled with high strength GIC (Ketac Molar-3M ESPE), and (b) 30 cavities were filled with resin-modified GIC (Fuji VIII-GC Corp). Two independent calibrated examiners carried out the evaluations according to ART criteria. The interexaminer kappa was 0.92. Data were submitted to chi-square, McNemar, and Fisher's tests. A difference was statistically significant if P<.05. RESULTS: In a 12-month follow-up, 59 restorations were evaluated. The success rates of the restorations were 100% and 93% for Fuji VIII and Ketac Molar, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between GICs, cavity types, or operators. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a 12-month follow-up evaluation, the clinical performance of the multiple-surface atraumatic restorative treatment restorations of both glass ionomer cements (high-strength and resin-modified) was considered satisfactory with a high success rate.