Daniel Demétrio Faustino-Silva1,2, Márcia Cançado Figueiredo3. 1. Graduate Program of the Assessment and Production of Technologies for the Brazilian Unified Health System, Grupo Hospitalar Conceição (GHC), Av. Ipiranga, 8400/1303, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, 91530-000, Brazil. ddemetrio@gmail.com. 2. Hospital Nossa Senhora da Conceição, Gerência de Ensino e Pesquisa - Centro Administrativo, 1° andar, Av. Francisco Trein, 596, Porto Alegre, RS, 91530-000, Brazil. ddemetrio@gmail.com. 3. Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) School of Dentistry, Rua Ramiro Barcelos 2492, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, 90035-003, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) performed 4 years ago in babies suffering from early childhood caries (ECC), and to compare the clinical performance of ART atraumatic restorations performed with two different high-viscosity glass ionomer cements (GIC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a longitudinal follow-up of a randomized, double-blind, split-mouth-type clinical trial. The initial sample was composed of 100 deciduous molars with occlusal lesions in 25 children with ages between 18 and 36 months who receivedART with two different GICs: Ketac Molar Easymix® (3 M ESPE) and Vitro Molar® (DFL). The clinical assessments were performed by a trained, blind examiner gauged by the parameters assessed in 1, 2, and 4 years (ART and USPHS criteria). RESULTS: For the analysis of the clinical performance of ARTs between the different GICs, the chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests were applied (p < 0.05). In the 4 years of evaluation, the sample was composed by 76 ARTs and 19 children, with 94.7% of the treatments having inactivated the cavity process. The total success percentage of the ARTs was 94%, 87.5%, and 82.9%, in 1, 2, and 4 years of follow-up, respectively. Moreover, among the GICs studied, this difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05) ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03756025). CONCLUSION: ART was effective in handling ECC, with an excellent clinical performance of ART restorations, for both GICs, during the 4 years of follow-up. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: ART, with both GIC studied, is an alternative therapy for ECC.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) performed 4 years ago in babies suffering from early childhood caries (ECC), and to compare the clinical performance of ART atraumatic restorations performed with two different high-viscosity glass ionomer cements (GIC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a longitudinal follow-up of a randomized, double-blind, split-mouth-type clinical trial. The initial sample was composed of 100 deciduous molars with occlusal lesions in 25 children with ages between 18 and 36 months who received ART with two different GICs: Ketac Molar Easymix® (3 M ESPE) and Vitro Molar® (DFL). The clinical assessments were performed by a trained, blind examiner gauged by the parameters assessed in 1, 2, and 4 years (ART and USPHS criteria). RESULTS: For the analysis of the clinical performance of ARTs between the different GICs, the chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests were applied (p < 0.05). In the 4 years of evaluation, the sample was composed by 76 ARTs and 19 children, with 94.7% of the treatments having inactivated the cavity process. The total success percentage of the ARTs was 94%, 87.5%, and 82.9%, in 1, 2, and 4 years of follow-up, respectively. Moreover, among the GICs studied, this difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05) ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03756025). CONCLUSION: ART was effective in handling ECC, with an excellent clinical performance of ART restorations, for both GICs, during the 4 years of follow-up. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: ART, with both GIC studied, is an alternative therapy for ECC.