scholarly journals Clinical Trial of a New Glass Ionomer for an Atraumatic Restorative Treatment Technique in Class I Restorations Placed in Latvian School Children

2002 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Armands Ziraps ◽  
Eino Honkala
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
School Children ◽  
Class I ◽  
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ◽  
Treatment Technique ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Treatment

scholarly journals Clinical evaluation of multisurface ART restorations

2005 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Francisca Gigo Cefaly ◽  
Terezinha de Jesus Esteves Barata ◽  
Celiane Mary Carneiro Tapety ◽  
Eduardo Bresciani ◽  
Maria Fidela de Lima Navarro
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Permanent Teeth ◽  
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ◽  
Treatment Technique ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Tooth Surfaces

The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of two different glass-ionomer cements: a high-density (Ketac Molar - ESPE) and a resin-modified cement (Fuji VIII - GC) using the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment technique to restore multisurface cavities in permanent teeth. A total of 60 ART restorations (30 with each material) were placed in schoolchildren (9-16 years of age) by two operators. After a period of 6 months, two independent examiners evaluated 59 restorations according to the criteria used in previous ART studies. Data were submitted to McNemar and Fischer tests. The success rate of the treatment was 98.3%. One restoration (Ketac Molar) was replaced by another material and was recorded as failure. The success rates of the restorations were 100% and 96.6% for Fuji VIII and Ketac Molar, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the restorations success between baseline and 6 months (p>0.05). In the same way, no significant differences were found between materials, cavity types or operators (p>0.05). The ART approach was highly appropriate and effective in restorations involving two or more tooth surfaces, after 6 months. The results showed a promising performance of the ART technique with both materials.

scholarly journals In vitro and in vivo evaluations of glass-ionomer cement containing chlorhexidine for Atraumatic Restorative Treatment

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 541-550 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristiane Duque ◽  
Kelly Limi Aida ◽  
Jesse Augusto Pereira ◽  
Gláucia Schuindt Teixeira ◽  
Angela Scarparo Caldo-Teixeira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Ionomer Cement

scholarly journals Compressive and diametral tensile strength of glass ionomer cements

2004 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 344-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo Bresciani ◽  
Terezinha de Jesus Esteves Barata ◽  
Ticiane Cestari Fagundes ◽  
Akimi Adachi ◽  
Marina Martins Terrin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tensile Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Diametral Tensile Strength

The aim of this study was to compare, in different periods of time, the compressive and diametral tensile strength of a traditional high viscous glass ionomer cement: Fuji IX (GC Corporation), with two new Brazilian GIC's: Vitro-Molar (DFL) and Bioglass R (Biodinamica), all indicated for the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) technique. Fifteen disk specimens (6.0mm diameter x 3.0mm height) for the diametral tensile strength (DTS) test and fifteen cylindrical specimens (6.0mm diameter x 12.0mm height) for the compressive strength (CS) test were made of each GIC. Specimens were stored in deionized water at 37º C and 100% of humidity in a stove until testing. Five specimens of each GIC were submitted to CS and DTS test in each period, namely 1 hour, 24 hours and 7 days. The specimens were tested in a testing machine (Emic) at a crosshead speed of 1.0mm/min for CS and 0.5mm/min for the DTS test until failure occurred. The data were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (alpha=0.05). The mean CS values ranged from 42.03 to 155.47MPa and means DTS from 5.54 to 13.72 MPa, with test periods from 1h to 7 days. The CS and DTS tests showed no statistically significant difference between Fuji IX and Vitro Molar, except for CS test at 1-hour period. Bioglass R had lowest mean value for CS of the cements tested. In DTS test Bioglass R presented no statistically significant differences when compared with all others tested GICs at 1-hour period and Bioglass R presented no difference at 24-hour and 7-day periods when compared to Vitro-Molar. Further studies to investigate other physical properties such as fracture toughness and wear resistance, as well as chemical composition and biocompatibility, are now needed to better understand the properties of these new Brazilian GIC's.

Six-year follow up of atraumatic restorative treatment restorations placed in Chinese school children

2007 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 387-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward C. M. Lo ◽  
Christopher J. Holmgren ◽  
Deyu Hu ◽  
Wim van Palenstein Helderman
Keyword(s):  
School Children ◽  
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Chinese School

scholarly journals Atraumatic Restorative Treatment and Interim Therapeutic Restoration: A Review of the Literature

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afnan Saber ◽  
Azza El-Housseiny ◽  
Najlaa Alamoudi
Keyword(s):  
Dental Treatment ◽  
High Viscosity ◽  
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Traditional Treatment ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Mechanical Approach ◽  
Better Than ◽  
The Ideal

This review discusses the techniques and uses of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and interim therapeutic restoration (ITR) and states the differences between these two approaches. ART and ITR are similar approaches and are performed using the same material, but they differ in the purpose of their use. ART is used in cases when there are obstacles to reaching dental care units and has been proven to have high success rates in primary and permanent dentitions. ITR is used as a temporary restoration that will be replaced with a more definitive one. ITR is used in cases when the ideal dental treatment cannot be performed. Conventional glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) restorative cement (GIC) is the material of choice that has been used for ART and ITR. This is because of its fluoride release properties, including its ability to bond to enamel and dentine, its pulpal biocompatibility, and its ease of manipulation. High-viscosity glass ionomer performed better than low and medium-viscosity glass ionomer in ART. Combining GIC with conditioner, as well as the use of a chemo-mechanical approach, improved the success rate of ART. Both ATR and ITR are acceptable strategies, with success rates comparable to the traditional treatment methods.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document