Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Oral Investigations
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations 3/2009

Open Access 01-09-2009 | Original Article

Two years survival rate of class II composite resin restorations prepared by ART with and without a chemomechanical caries removal gel in primary molars

Authors: Asli Topaloglu-Ak, Ece Eden, Jo E. Frencken, Ozant Oncag

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 3/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

The aim was to test the null hypotheses that there is no difference: (1) in carious lesion development at the restoration margin between class II composite resin restorations in primary molars produced through the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) with and without a chemomechanical caries removal gel and (2) in the survival rate of class II composite resin restorations between two treatment groups after 2 years. Three hundred twenty-seven children with 568 class II cavitated lesions were included in a parallel mouth study design. Four operators placed resin composite (Filtek Z 250) restorations bonded with a self-etch adhesive (Adper prompt L pop). Two independent examiners evaluated the restorations after 0.5, 1, and 2 years using the modified Ryge criteria. The Kaplan–Meier survival method was applied to estimate survival percentages. A high proportion of restorations were lost during the study period. Therefore, the first hypothesis could not be tested. No statistically significant difference was observed between the cumulative survival percentages of restorations produced by the two treatment approaches over the 2-year period (ART, 54.1 ± 3.4%; ART with Carisolv™, 46.0 ± 3.4%). This hypothesis was accepted. ART with chemomechanical gel might not provide an added benefit increasing the survival percentages of ART class II composite resin restorations in primary teeth.
Literature
1.
Altman DG (1999) Practical statistics for medical research. CRC, Boca Raton, p 379
2.
Ansari G, Beeley JA, Fung DF (2003) Chemomechanical caries removal in primary teeth in a group of anxious children. J Oral Rehab 30:773–779CrossRef
3.
Banarjee A, Kidd EAM, Watson TF (2000) In vitro evaluation of five alternative methods of carious dentine excavation. Caries Res 34:144–150CrossRef
4.
Bergmann J, Leitao J, Kultje C, Bergmann D, Glode MJ (2005) Removing dentine caries in deciduous teeth with Carisolv: a randomised, controlled, prospective study with six-month follow-up, comparing chemomechanical treatment with drilling. Oral Health Prev Dent 3:105–111PubMed
5.
Bittencourt DD, Ezecelevski IG, Reis A, van Dijken JWV, Loguercio AD (2005) An 18-months’ evaluation of self-etch and etch & rinse adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions. Acta Odont Scand 63:173–178CrossRef
6.
Bönecker M, Toi C, Cleaton-Jones P (2003) Mutans streptococci and lactobacilli in carious dentine before and after atraumatic restorative treatment. J Dent 31:423–428PubMedCrossRef
7.
Brackett MG, Brackett WW, Haisch LD (2006) Microleakage of class V resin composites placed using self-etching resins: effect of prior etching. Quintessence Int 37:109–113PubMed
8.
Bulut T, Sharif S (2004) Atraumatic restorative treatment in Nederland. Dissertation, College of Dental Sciences, Nijmegen
9.
Burke FJ, McHugh S, Shaw L, Hosey MT, Macpherson L, Delargy S, Dopheide B (2005) UK dentists’ attitudes and behaviour towards atraumatic restorative treatment for primary teeth. Br Dent J 199:365–369PubMedCrossRef
10.
Eden E, Topaloglu-Ak A, Frencken JE, Van’t Hof MA (2006) Survival of self etched class II composite restorations using ART and conventional cavity preparations in primary molars. Am J Dent 19:359–363PubMed
11.
Effron B (1979) Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat 7:1–26CrossRef
12.
Emanuel R, Broom JC (1988) Surface energy of chemo-mechanically prepared dentin. Quintessence Int 19:369–372PubMed
13.
Ericson D, Zimmerman M, Raber H, Gotrick B, Bornstein R, Thorell J (1999) Clinical evaluation of efficacy and safety of a new method for chemo-mechanical removal of caries. Caries Res 33:171–177PubMedCrossRef
14.
Ersin NK, Candan U, Aykut A, Oncag O, Eronat C, Kose T (2006) A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach. J Am Dent Assoc 137:1529–1536PubMed
15.
Flückiger L, Waltimo T, Stich H, Lussi A (2005) Comparison of chemomechanical caries removal using Carisolv or conventional hand excavation in deciduous teeth in vitro. J Dent 33:87–90PubMedCrossRef
16.
Frencken JE, Pilot T, Songpaisan Y, Phantumvanit P (1996) Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): rationale, technique and development. J Public Health Dent 56:135–140PubMedCrossRef
17.
Fure S, Lingström P, Birkhed D (2000) Evaluation of Carisolv for the chemomechanical removal of primary tooth caries in vivo. Caries Res 34:275–280PubMedCrossRef
18.
Fure S, Lingström P (2004) Evaluation of the chemomechanical removal of dentine caries in vivo with a new modified Carisolv gel. Clin Oral Investig 8:139–144PubMedCrossRef
19.
Guéders AM, Charpentier JF, Albert AI, Geerts SO (2006) Microleakage after thermocycling of 4 etch and rinse and 3 self-etch adhesives with and without a flowable composite lining. Oper Dent 31:450–455PubMedCrossRef
20.
Honkala E, Behbehani J, Ibricevic H, Kerosuo E, Al-Jame G (2003) The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach to restoring primary teeth in a standard dental clinic. Int J Paediatr Dent 13:172–179PubMedCrossRef
21.
Kirzioglu Z, Gurbuz T, Yilmaz Y (2007) Clinical evaluation of chemomechanical and mechanical caries removal: status of the restorations at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Clin Oral Invest 11:69–76CrossRef
22.
Louw AJ, Sarvan I, Chikte UME, Honkala E (2002) One year evaluation of atraumatic restorative treatment and minimal intervention techniques on primary teeth. S Afr Dent J 57:336–371
23.
Maragakis GM, Hahn P, Hellwig E (2001) Clinical evaluation of chemomechanical caries removal in primary molars and its acceptance by patients. Caries Res 35:205–210PubMedCrossRef
24.
Mickenautsch S, Frencken JE, van’t Hof MA (2007) Atraumatic restorative treatment and dental anxiety in outpatients attending public oral health clinics in South Africa. J Public Health Dent 67:179–184PubMedCrossRef
25.
Miranda C, Prates LHM, Vieira RS, Calvo MCM (2006) Shear bond strength of different adhesive system to primary dentin and enamel. J Clin Peadiatr Dent 31:35–40
26.
Mount GJ, Hume WR (1997) A revised classification of carious lesions by site and size. Quintessence Int 28:301–303PubMed
27.
Munshi AK, Hedge AM, Shetty PK (2001) Clinical evaluation of Carisolv in the chemo-mechanical removal of carious dentin. J Clin Pediatr Dent 26:49–54PubMed
28.
Nadanovsky P, Cohen Carneiro F, Souza de Mello F (2001) Removal of caries using only hand instruments: a comparison of mechanical and chemo-mechanical methods. Caries Res 35:384–389PubMedCrossRef
29.
Pashley EL, Agee KA, Pashley DH, Tay FR (2002) Effect of one versus two applications of an unfilled, all-in-one adhesive on dentine bonding. J Dent 30:83–90PubMedCrossRef
30.
Perdigao J, Dutra Correa M, Castilhos N, Carmo RPA, Anauate-Netto C, Cordeiro JDH, Amore R, Lewgoy HR (2007) One year clinical performance of self etch adhesives in posterior restorations. Am J Dent 20:125–133PubMed
31.
Peric T, Markovic D (2007) In vitro effectiveness of a chemo-mechanical method for caries removal. Eur J Paediatr Dent 8:61–67PubMed
32.
Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2005) Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater 21:864–881PubMedCrossRef
33.
Poon EC, Smales RJ, Yip KH (2005) Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin based composites: results at 3.5 years. J Am Dent Assoc 136:1533–1540PubMed
34.
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. J Dent Child 67:123–127
35.
36.
Schriks MCM, Van Amerongen WE (2003) Atraumatic perspective of ART. Psychological and physiological aspects of treatment with and without rotary instruments. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 31:15–20PubMedCrossRef
37.
Seale SN, Casamassimo PS (2003) Access to dental care for children in the United States. A survey of general practitioners. J Am Dent Assoc 134:1630–1640PubMed
38.
Shirai K, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Lambrechts P, Suzuki K, Shintani H, Van Meerbeek B (2005) Effect of cavity configuration and aging on the bonding effectiveness of six adhesives to dentin. Dent Mater 21:110–124PubMedCrossRef
39.
Taifour D, Frencken JE, Beiruti N, Van’t Hof MA, Truin GJ (2002) Effectiveness of glass-ionomer (ART) and amalgam restorations in the deciduous dentition—results after 3 years. Caries Res 36:437–444PubMedCrossRef
40.
Tay FR, Pashley DH, Suh BI, Carvalho RM, Itthagarun A (2002) Single-step adhesives are permeable membranes. J Dent 30:371–382PubMedCrossRef
41.
Turkun SL (2003) Clinical evaluation of a self etching and a one bottle adhesive system at two years. J Dent 31:527–34PubMedCrossRef
42.
Turkun LS (2005) The clinical performance of one- and two-step self-etching adhesive systems at one year. J Am Dent Assoc 136:656–664PubMed
43.
Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P (2003) Current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 28:215–235PubMed
44.
Yamada Y, Kimura Y, Hossain M Kinoshita JI, Shimizu Y, Matsomoto K (2005) Caries removal with Carisolv system: criteria evaluation and microleakage test. J Clin Pediatr Dent 30:121–126PubMed
Metadata
Title
Two years survival rate of class II composite resin restorations prepared by ART with and without a chemomechanical caries removal gel in primary molars
Authors
Asli Topaloglu-Ak
Ece Eden
Jo E. Frencken
Ozant Oncag
Publication date
01-09-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 3/2009
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-008-0241-5

Other articles of this Issue 3/2009

Clinical Oral Investigations 3/2009 Go to the issue

Original Article

Candida albicans adhesion to composite resin materials

Original Article

Dealing with hierarchical data in periodontal research

Original Article

Temperature rise and degree of photopolymerization conversion of nanocomposites and conventional dental composites

Original Article

Effect of different surface treatments on the composite–composite repair bond strength

Short Communication

Mucocele of the gland of Blandin–Nuhn: histological and clinical findings

Original Article

Investigation of elongated styloid process prevalence in patients with torus palatinus