AIM: To compare the survival rates of Class II Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) restorations placed in primary molars using cotton rolls or rubber dam as isolation methods. METHODS: A total of 232 children, 6-7 years old, both genders, were selected having one primary molar with proximal dentine lesion. The children were randomly assigned into two groups: control group with Class II ART restoration made using cotton rolls and experimental group using rubber dam. The restorations were evaluated by eight calibrated evaluators (Kappa > 0.8) after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. RESULTS: A total of 48 (20.7%) children were considered dropout, after 24 months. The cumulative survival rate after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months was 61.4%, 39.0%, 29.1% and 18.0%, respectively for the control group, and 64.1%, 55.1%, 40.1% and 32.1%, respectively for the rubber dam group. The log rank test for censored data showed no statistical significant difference between the groups (P = 0.07). The univariate Cox Regression showed no statistical significant difference after adjusting for independent variables (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both groups had similar survival rates, and after 2 years, the use of rubber dam does not increase the success of Class II ART restorations significantly.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To compare the survival rates of Class II Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) restorations placed in primary molars using cotton rolls or rubber dam as isolation methods. METHODS: A total of 232 children, 6-7 years old, both genders, were selected having one primary molar with proximal dentine lesion. The children were randomly assigned into two groups: control group with Class II ART restoration made using cotton rolls and experimental group using rubber dam. The restorations were evaluated by eight calibrated evaluators (Kappa > 0.8) after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. RESULTS: A total of 48 (20.7%) children were considered dropout, after 24 months. The cumulative survival rate after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months was 61.4%, 39.0%, 29.1% and 18.0%, respectively for the control group, and 64.1%, 55.1%, 40.1% and 32.1%, respectively for the rubber dam group. The log rank test for censored data showed no statistical significant difference between the groups (P = 0.07). The univariate Cox Regression showed no statistical significant difference after adjusting for independent variables (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both groups had similar survival rates, and after 2 years, the use of rubber dam does not increase the success of Class II ART restorations significantly.