Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars: one-year results.
Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars: one-year results.
复制标题
用于乳磨牙玻璃离聚物修复的无创伤修复治疗和传统空洞制备的比较：一年结果。
作者：
H. Yip;R. Smales;Chang Yu;Xu Gao;D. Deng
客观化
本研究的目的是比较玻璃离子水门汀与非创伤性修复方法和传统的窝洞制备方法的成功率。
方法和材料
将两种高强度、美观的常规玻璃离子粘固剂植入82个I类和53个II类非创伤性修复治疗和常规窝洞预备中，将银汞合金植入32个I类常规预备材料中，对60名7~9岁儿童的乳磨牙进行根管治疗。
结果
仅用手用器械制作的非创伤性修复治疗准备工作比用传统旋转器械完成的准备工作所需的时间长约50%。1年后，无银汞合金失败。对于玻璃离子水门汀，采用非创伤性修复方法，I类洞预备成活率(92.9%)明显高于II类洞预备成活率(64.7%)。对于II类洞预备，传统的窝洞预备方法(86.7%)的存活率(86.7%)也明显高于非创伤性修复治疗方法(64.7%)。然而，对于I类制剂，非创伤性修复治疗和传统方法似乎都同样有效。
结论
在临床环境中，使用无创修复治疗手用器械进行窝洞准备更耗时，而且与使用传统旋转器械相比，该方法还可以为乳磨牙的某些II类准备提供更少的机械固位力和/或玻璃离子粘固剂体积。
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to compare the success rates of glass-ionomer cement restorations placed with the atraumatic restorative treatment approach and conventional cavity preparation methods.
METHOD AND MATERIALS
Two encapsulated, high-strength, esthetic conventional glass-ionomer cements were placed in 82 Class I and 53 Class II atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations, and an encapsulated amalgam alloy was placed in 32 Class I conventional preparations, in vital primary molars of 60 Chinese children aged 7 to 9 years.
RESULTS
The atraumatic restorative treatment preparations, made with hand instruments only, took approximately 50% longer to complete than did the preparations completed with conventional rotary instrumentation. After 1 year, there were no amalgam failures. For the glass-ionomer cement restorations, when the atraumatic restorative treatment method was used, significantly better survival rates were found for Class I (92.9%) than for Class II (64.7%) cavity preparations. There was also a strong trend for relatively better survival rates for the conventional cavity preparation method (86.7%) than for the atraumatic restorative treatment (64.7%) method for Class II cavity preparations. However, both the atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional methods appeared equally effective for Class I preparations.
CONCLUSION
In a clinic setting, the use of atraumatic restorative treatment hand instruments for cavity preparation is more time consuming, and the method may also provide less mechanical retention and/or bulk of glass-ionomer cement for some Class II preparations in primary molars than does the use of conventional rotary instruments.