Survival of glass ionomer restorations placed in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity preparations: 2-year results
Survival of glass ionomer restorations placed in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity preparations: 2-year results
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1875-595x.2004.tb00251.x
复制
发表时间：
2004-02-01
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
Smales, RJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Yu, C;Gao, XJ;Smales, RJ
目的：比较玻璃离子水泥（GIC）修复体的存活率，使用手工仪器的繁琐的修复疗法（ART）方法和旋转仪器的常规腔制剂制备。方法和材料：将两个封装的高强度常规GIC（Fuji IX GP，Ketac摩尔APLICAP）放置在82级I和53级11级制剂中，并在32中放置了1级11级制剂和一项封装的非Gamma 2 Amalgam合金（GK-AMALGAM） I级制剂，在60名中国儿童的主要磨牙中，平均年龄为7.40 +/- 1.24（SD）。因此，形成了9个治疗组。结果：两年后，在9个治疗组中的7个中没有发现显着的生存差异（p = 0.99）。然而，使用ART方法制备的II类空腔中的两组组成的组成的富吉IX GP和KETAC摩尔APLICAP显示出明显较低的恢复存活率（P <0.001）。最初密封的72个裂隙中只有3个与还原相邻，似乎保留了任何GIC材料。结论：在诊所环境中，Art手工仪器和常规ROTA仪器方法同样适用于高级I恢复生存，但不适合II类恢复生存，而常规腔制备方法则优选。
Objective: To compare the survival of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations placed in a dental clinic setting using both the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach with hand instruments, and conventional cavity preparation with rotary instruments. Method and Materials: Two encapsulated high-strength conventional GICs (Fuji IX GP, Ketac-Molar Aplicap) were placed in 82 Class I and 53 Class 11 preparations and one encapsulated non-gamma 2 amalgam alloy (GK-amalgam) was placed in 32 Class I preparations, in the primary molars of 60 Chinese children with a mean age of 7.40 +/- 1.24 (SD) years. Thus, 9 treatment groups were formed. Results: After two years, there were no significant survival differences found among 7 of the 9 treatment groups (p = 0.99). However, two groups comprising Fuji IX GP and Ketac-Molar Aplicap placed in Class II cavities prepared using the ART approach showed significantly lower restoration survivals (p < 0.001). Only 3 of the 72 initially sealed fissures adjacent to the restorations appeared to retain any GIC material. Conclusions: in a clinic setting, both the ART hand instrument and conventional rota instrument methods were equally suitable for high Class I restoration survival, but not for Class II restoration survival where the conventional cavity preparation method was preferable.