HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (12) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Frencken, J.E. Articles by Holmgren, C.J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Frencken, J.E. Articles by Holmgren, C.J.

Effectiveness of Single-surface ART Restorations in the Permanent Dentition: A Meta-analysis

¹ WHO Collaborating Centre for Oral Health Care Planning and Future Scenarios, University of Nijmegen, College of Dental Sciences, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, the Netherlands;
² Department of Preventive and Community Dentistry and Paediatric Dentistry, University of Nijmegen, College of Dental Sciences, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, the Netherlands; and
³ Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Louwesweg 1, 1066 EA Amsterdam, the Netherlands;

^* corresponding author, j.frencken{at}dent.umcn.nl

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS & METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Over the past few years, there has been an increase in the number of studies reporting on various aspects of the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach. Five randomized clinical trials in which ART restorations with glass ionomers were compared with amalgam restorations in permanent teeth for a maximum period of 3 yrs constituted the database. This meta-analysis divided the publications into ‘early’ (1987–1992) and ‘late’ (1995-) studies on the basis of improvements in the approach. The analysis showed that, in the ‘early’ studies, single-surface amalgam restorations survived statistically significantly longer than comparable ART restorations after 1, 2, and 3 yrs. This trend did not continue into the late group of studies; no statistically significant difference between the 2 types of restorations was found. Based on the available data, it appears that there is no difference in survival results between single-surface ART restorations and amalgam restorations in permanent teeth over the first 3 yrs.

KEY WORDS: dental caries • atraumatic restorative treatment • ART • permanent teeth • meta-analysis

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS & METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
The Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach involves the removal of infected tooth tissues with hand instruments, followed by filling the cleaned cavity and associated pits and fissures with an adhesive restorative material (Frencken et al., 1996a). ART is considered one of the minimally invasive operative approaches in the concept of minimal intervention dentistry (Tyas et al., 2000). This relatively new approach requires neither electricity nor plumbed water and, therefore, can be applied in almost any setting. Because a hand-mixed glass ionomer does not require electrically driven equipment, this restorative material was the initial choice of the range of adhesive restorative materials. However, ART does not seem to be confined to places where electricity is absent. Recently, Louw et al.(2002) reported survival of ART restorations produced in dental clinics using a compomer. ART has also been shown to be less painful than conventional approaches (Rahimtoola et al., 2000; Schriks and van Amerongen, 2003), and local anesthesia is rarely required (Phantumvanit et al., 1996; Frencken et al., 1996b; Ho et al., 1999; Mickenautsch et al., 1999; Holmgren et al., 2000; Lo and Holmgren, 2001; Taifour et al., 2003).

Since its inception in the mid-1980s, the ART approach has been subjected to research. In the beginning, researchers were interested in the length of survival of ART restorations (Phantumvanit et al., 1996; Frencken et al., 1998a,b). These studies also served to obtain information on technical aspects of the process of removing infected dentin and enamel, and on handling characteristics of the glass ionomer used to provide a sealant restoration. For example, the so-called ‘press-finger’ technique was developed as part of the Thailand study (Phantumvanit et al., 1996). With this technique, the top layer of glass ionomer is pressed into both the cavity and adjoining pits and fissures with the operator’s gloved index finger. Subsequently, this idea was investigated in an in vitro study by Smales et al.(1997). The study showed no statistically significant difference in penetration depth and microleakage in pits and fissures sealed with the glass ionomers used with ART and a resin composite sealant that served as a control.

In a review on the ART approach commissioned by the FDI, Mjör and Gordan (1999) recommended that more information was needed on the comparison of restorations produced by ART with those produced with standard conventional approaches. At the time that review was written, only one such study, of only one year’s duration, was available (Smith et al., 1990). Meanwhile, several publications have appeared in the literature recently, reporting comparisons between ART and amalgam approaches. Since the ART approach is being utilized by an ever-increasing number of dental professionals around the world, we considered the need for a first meta-analysis on this topic. The present publication reports the findings of this meta-analysis.

	MATERIALS & METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS & METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Data Collection
The literature search was carried out on publications indexed in PubMed and MEDLINE up to 1 September 2003, with the following Key Words: restorations, survival, permanent (dentition), Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART), and amalgam. The search revealed 7 publications (Phantumvanit et al., 1996; Mandari et al., 2001, 2003; Rahimtoola and van Amerongen, 2002; Gao et al., 2003; Kalf-Scholte et al., 2003; Taifour et al., 2003). The inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis consisted of the following: randomized clinical trial, survival results after 1–3 yrs, and sufficient power of the study. One publication had to be excluded because the power of the study was low (Gao et al., 2003), and in one publication, only survival results after 6 yrs were presented (Mandari et al., 2003). These exclusions resulted in 5 studies being eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. No additional studies were found in the list of references of the retrieved publications.

The main study characteristics of the 5 studies are described in the Table. All studies reported on single-surface restorations in permanent teeth. One of the studies used a split-mouth design, 2 a parallel group design, and the remaining 2 used a nested split-mouth design, the parallel group component of which was used in this meta-analysis. Three studies used a low-viscosity glass ionomer (Phantumvanit et al., 1996; Mandari et al., 2001; Kalf-Scholte et al., 2003), and in 2 of these (Mandari et al., 2001; Kalf-Scholte et al., 2003), cavities were not conditioned prior to insertion of the glass ionomer. These 3 studies started in the late 1980s or early 1990s and were the first ones in which hand instruments and glass ionomers (ART) were compared with rotary instruments and amalgam (conventional approach). The remaining 2 studies started in 1995 (Rahimtoola and van Amerongen, 2002) and 1997 (Taifour et al., 2003) and used high-viscosity glass ionomers produced for use with the ART approach. These newer materials have improved physical characteristics (Yip et al., 2001). Besides the availability of improved glass ionomers, operators in the last 2 studies had followed an ART training course that was based on experiences gained in the earlier studies.

Investigator Agreement
The survival percentages and corresponding standard errors or confidence intervals for the 5 studies were independently retrieved from the publications by two investigators. There was no disagreement observed between the investigators.

Statistical Analysis
For the sake of simplicity, we used 95% confidence intervals (CI) to calculate the standard error (SE) for the survival percentages according to the following equation: SE = (upper - lower CI)/4. We combined survival percentages within homogenous groups by weighing with the reciprocal standard error variances. For yrs 1 and 3 in the late studies, the Syria study (Taifour et al., 2003) reflects the combined studies.

	RESULTS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS & METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
The differences in survival percentages and the corresponding standard errors between single-surface ART and amalgam restorations per study and for the combined studies after 1, 2, and 3 yrs are presented in Figs. 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In the early group of studies, single-surface amalgam restorations survived statistically significantly longer than single-surface ART restorations after 1, 2, and 3 yrs. In the late group of studies, there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 types of restorations (large overlap in 95% CI). After 3 yrs, single-surface ART restorations in the late group of studies survived significantly longer than single-surface amalgam restorations in the early group of studies (95% CI are not overlapping).

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Difference in survival percentages and 95% confidence intervals (CI) between single-surface amalgam and ART restorations per country and combined for the early and the late groups of studies after 1 yr.

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Difference in survival percentages and 95% confidence intervals (CI) between single-surface amalgam and ART restorations per country and combined for the early and the late groups of studies after 2 yrs.

View larger version (13K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Difference in survival percentages and 95% confidence intervals (CI) between single-surface amalgam and ART restorations per country and combined for the early and the late groups of studies after 3 yrs.

	DISCUSSION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS & METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

Our decision to divide the 5 studies under analysis into 2 groups is justified by the distinctly different physical characteristics of the restorative materials used and the differences in training received by the operators. The low-viscosity glass ionomers, used in the early studies, were produced for use in low-stress-bearing areas such as cervical cavities. In the absence of an alternative material at that time, they were placed in high-stress-bearing areas such as occlusal cavities as part of the ART approach. After the initial results of some early ART studies, manufacturers produced glass ionomers that were designed to better withstand these high stresses. The commonly held belief that the ART approach is easy for an experienced dental professional to perform has been questioned by some authors (Frencken et al., 1998a,b). The operators in the early studies had not been specifically trained in ART, while those of the later studies had attended a structured ART training course.

The meta-analysis showed that single-surface amalgam restorations in the early group of studies survived longer than comparable ART restorations within the first 3 years. This finding is not surprising when one considers the types of glass ionomers used, the absence of cavity conditioning in ART restorations in 2 of the 3 studies, and the operators’ lack of previous experience in performing ART. The finding that the survival percentages of single-surface ART restorations in the late group of studies were significantly higher than those for comparable amalgam restorations for all 3 yrs is of more interest. Unfortunately, the late group of studies constituted of only 1 three-year study, and that calls for caution in the drawing of conclusions with respect to survival of restorations in this group.

In conclusion, it appears that single-surface amalgam restorations in permanent teeth in the early studies survived longer than comparable ART restorations over a period of 3 yrs, but there is no evidence that this trend continued into the late group of studies. In the more recently conducted studies, there appears to be no difference between the 2 types of restorations.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
This work was supported by institutional funds.

Received March 10, 2003; Last revision October 14, 2003; Accepted November 4, 2003

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS & METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Frencken JE, Makoni F, Sithole WD (1996a). Atraumatic restorative treatment and glass-ionomer sealants in a school oral health programme in Zimbabwe; evaluation after 1 year. Caries Res 30:428–433.[Medline]

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

Frencken JE, Makoni F, Sithole WD, Hackenitz E (1998a). Three-year survival of one-surface ART restorations and glass-ionomer sealants in a school oral health programme in Zimbabwe. Caries Res 32:119–126.[ISI][Medline]

Frencken JE, Makoni F, Sithole WD (1998b). ART restorations and glass ionomer sealants in Zimbabwe: survival after 3 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 26:372–381.[Medline]

Gao W, Peng D, Smales RJ, Yip KH (2003). Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional restorative procedures in a hospital clinic: evaluation after 30 months. Quintessence Int 34:31–37.[Medline]

Ho TF, Smales RJ, Fang DT (1999). A 2-year clinical study of two glass ionomer cements used in the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 27:195–201.[Medline]

Holmgren CJ, Lo EC, Hu DY, Wan H (2000). ART restorations and sealants placed in Chinese school children—results after three years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 28:314–320.[ISI][Medline]

Kalf-Scholte SM, van Amerongen WE, Smith AJ, van Haastrecht HJ (2003). Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): a three-year clinical study in Malawi—comparison of conventional amalgam and ART restorations. J Public Health Dent 63:99–103.[Medline]

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

Louw AJ, Sarvan I, Chikte UM, Honkala E (2002). One-year evaluation of atraumatic restorative treatment and minimal intervention techniques on primary teeth. S Afr Dent J 57:366–371.

Mandari GJ, Truin GJ, van ’t Hof MA, Frencken JE (2001). Effectiveness of three minimal intervention approaches for managing dental caries: survival of restorations after 2 years. Caries Res 35:90–94.[Medline]

Mandari GJ, Frencken JE, van ’t Hof MA (2003). Six-year success rates of occlusal amalgam and glass-ionomer restorations placed using three minimal intervention approaches. Caries Res 37:246–253.[Medline]

Mickenautsch S, Rudolph MJ, Ogunbodede EO, Frencken JE (1999). The impact of the ART approach on the treatment profile in a Mobile Dental System (MDS) in South Africa. Int Dent J 49:132–138.[Medline]

Mjör IA, Gordan VV (1999). A review of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART). Int Dent J 49:127–131.[Medline]

Phantumvanit P, Songpaisan Y, Pilot T, Frencken JE (1996). Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): a three-year community field trial in Thailand-survival of one-surface restorations in the permanent dentition. J Public Health Dent 56:141–145.[Medline]

Rahimtoola S, van Amerongen E (2002). Comparison of two tooth saving preparation techniques for one-surface cavities. ASDC J Dent Child 69:16–26.[Medline]

Rahimtoola S, van Amerongen E, Maher R, Groen H (2000). Pain related to different ways of minimal intervention in the treatment of small caries lesions. ASDC J Dent Child 67:123–127.[Medline]

Schriks MC, van Amerongen WE (2003). Atraumatic perspective of ART. Psychological and physiological aspects of treatment with and without rotary instruments. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 31:15–20.[Medline]

Smales RJ, Gao W, Ho FT (1997). In vitro evaluation of sealing pits and fissures with newer glass-ionomer cements developed for the ART technique. J Clin Pediatr Dent 21:321–323.[Medline]

Smith AJ, Chimimba PD, Kalf-Scholte S, Bouma J (1990). Clinical pilot study on new dental filling materials and preparation procedures in developing countries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 18:309–312.[Medline]

Taifour D, Frencken JE, Beiruti N, van ’t Hof MA, Truin GJ, van Palenstein Helderman WH (2003). Comparison between restorations in the permanent dentition produced by hand and rotary instrumentation—survival after 3 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 31:122–128.[Medline]

Tyas MJ, Anusavice KJ, Frencken JE, Mount GJ (2000). Minimal intervention dentistry—a review. FDI commission project 1–97. Int Dent J 50:1–12.[Medline]

Yip HK, Smales RJ, Ngo HC, Tay FR, Chu FCS (2001). Selection of restorative materials for the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach: a review. Spec Care Dentist 21:216–221.[Medline]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. Niederman, E. Gould, J. Soncini, M. Tavares, V. Osborn, and J. M. Goodson A Model for Extending the Reach of the Traditional Dental Practice: The ForsythKids Program J Am Dent Assoc, August 1, 2008; 139(8): 1040 - 1050. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E.C.M. Lo, Y. Luo, H.P. Tan, J.E. Dyson, and E.F. Corbet ART and Conventional Root Restorations in Elders after 12 Months. J. Dent. Res., October 1, 2006; 85(10): 929 - 932. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (12) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Frencken, J.E. Articles by Holmgren, C.J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Frencken, J.E. Articles by Holmgren, C.J.