Clinical Performance of Art Restorations in Primary Teeth: A Survival Analysis

Objective: To assess the survival of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) restorations in primary teeth performed in a dental clinical setting. Study Design: One hundred and five single-surface ART restorations placed in 56 preschool children (mean age 31 months) were included. Final-year dental students performed the restorations using standard ART procedures with hand instruments. A resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitremer 3M/ESPE) was used as a restorative material. Performances of the restorations were assessed directly by the ART evaluation criteria. Follow-up period ranged from 6 to 48 months. Survival estimates for restoration longevity were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Log-rank test (P≤.05) was used to compare the success rates according to demographic and clinical characteristics of the restorations at baseline (age, sex, arch and segment). Results: Mean and median estimate times of survival were 37(95%CI: 32-42) months and 38 (95% CI: 29-47) months respectively. Success rates for ART restorations were 89%, 85% and 72% in 6 to 11, 12 to 24 and 25 to 48 months of evaluation respectively. Differences in success rates among demographic and clinical characteristics were not statistically significant. Conclusion:High survivals rates of the ART restorations found in this study seem to indicate the reliability of this approach as an appropriate treatment option for primary teeth in a clinical setting.

survival rate, ART, primary teeth

1. Burke FJ, McHugh S, Shaw L, Hosey, MT, Macpherson, L, Delargy, S, Dopheide, B. UK dentists’ attitudes and behaviour towards Atraumatic Restorative Treatment for primary teeth. Br Dent J, 199: 365–9, 2005.

2. Bresciani E, Nogueira DA, Henostroza Quintans N, Barata, TJE; Lau-ris, JRP, Navarro, MFL. Influence of rubber dam in the success of class II ART restorations in primary teeth. J Apll Oral Sci, 10: 231–7, 2002.

3. Frencken JE, Holmgren CJ. Atraumatic restoration treatment (ART) for dental caries. 1st ed. Nijmegen: STI Book, b.v., 86-93, 1999.

4. Frencken JE, Makoni F, Sithole WD. ART restorations and glass ionomer sealants in Zimbabwe: survival after 3 years.Community Dent Oral Epidemiol, 26: 372–81, 1998.

5. Frencken JE, Pilot T, Songpaisan Y, Phantumvanit P. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): rationale, technique, and development. J Public Health Dent, 56: 135–140, 1996.

6. Honkala E, Behbehani J, Ibricevic H, Kerosuo E, Al-Jame G. The atrau-matic restorative treatment (ART) approach to restoring primary teeth in a standard dental clinic. Int J Paediatr Dent, 13: 172–9, 2003.

7. Lo EC, Holmgren CJ. Provision of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) restorations to Chinese pre-school children—a 30-month evalu-ation. Int J Paediatr Dent, 11: 3–10, 2001.

8. Lo EC, Luo Y, Fan MW, Wei SH. Clinical investigation of two glass-ionomer restoratives used with the atraumatic restorative treatment approach in China: two-years results. Caries Res, 35: 458–63, 2001.

9. Louw AJ, Sarvan I, Chikte UM, Honkala E. One-year evaluation of atraumatic restorative treatment and minimum intervention techniques on primary teeth. SADJ, 57: 366–71, 2002.

10. Mallow PK, Durward CS, Klaipo M. Restoration of permanent teeth in young rural children in Cambodia using the atraumatic restorative treat-ment (ART) technique and Fuji II glass ionomer cement. Int J Paediatr Dent, 8: 35–40, 1998.

11. Mjor IA, Gordan VV. A review of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART). Int Dent J, 49: 127–31, 1997.

12. Pakhomov GN. Future trends in oral health and disease. Int Dent J, 49: 27–32, 1999.

13. Phantumvanit P, Songpaisan Y, Pilot T, Frencken JE. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): a three-year community field trial in Thai-land—survival of one-surface restorations in the permanent dentition. J Public Health Dent, 56: 141–5, 1996.

14. Raskin A, Setcos JC, Vreven J, Wilson NH. Influence of the isolation method on the 10-year clinical behaviour of posterior resin composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig, 4: 148–152, 2000.

15. Schriks MC, van Amerongen WE. Atraumatic perspectives of ART: psychological and physiological aspects of treatment with and without rotary instruments. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol, 31: 15–20, 2003.

16. Taifour D, Frencken JE, Beiruti N, van ‘t Hof MA, Truin GJ. Effective-ness of glass-ionomer (ART) and amalgam restorations in the decidu-ous dentition: results after 3 years. Caries Res, 36: 437–44, 2002.

17. van ‘t Hof MA, Frencken JE, van Palenstein Helderman WH, Holm-gren CJ. The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach for man-aging dental caries: a meta-analysis. Int Dent J, 56: 345–351, 2006.

18. WHO. Oral health survey: basic methods. 4 ed. Geneve: World health organization; 1997.

19. Yee R. An ART field study in western Nepal. Int Dent J, 51: 103–8, 2001.

20. Yu C, Gao XJ, Deng DM, Yip HK, Smales RJ. Survival of glass ionomer restorations placed in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity preparations: 2-year results. Int Dent J, 54: 42–6, 2004.