Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Jul-Aug;17(4):307-14.
doi: 10.1590/s1678-77572009000400008.

A field-trial of two restorative materials used with atraumatic restorative treatment in rural Turkey: 24-month results

Ertugrul Ercan  1 , C Türksel Dülgergil, Mübin Soyman, Mehmet Dalli, Isil Yildirim
Affiliations

A field-trial of two restorative materials used with atraumatic restorative treatment in rural Turkey: 24-month results

Ertugrul Ercan et al. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009 Jul-Aug.

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical performance of high-strength glass ionomer cement (HSGIC) and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) in single and multiple surface carious cavities in the field conditions.

Material and methods: A split-mouth design, including ninety-one fillings placed on contra lateral molar pairs of 37 children, was used in permanent dentition. As filling materials, a HSGIC (Ketac Molar/3M ESPE) and a RMGIC (Vitremer/ 3M ESPE) were used with the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART). Baseline and 6, 12 and 24-month evaluations of the fillings were made with standard-ART and USPHS criteria by two examiners with kappa values of 0.92 and 0.87 for both criteria.

Results: According to the USPHS criteria, the retention rates of RMGIC and HSGIC restorations were 100% and 80.9% for single surface, and 100% and 41.2% for multiple surface restorations after 24 months, respectively. Irrespective of surface number, RMGIC was significantly superior to HSGIC (p= 0.004), according to both standard-ART and USPHS criteria.

Conclusion: The results indicate that RMGIC may be an alternative restorative technique in comparison to high-strength GIC applications in ART-field-trials. However, further clinical and field trials are needed to support this conclusion.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1. Criteria used to evaluate USPHS (1)
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2. Clinical criteria used to evaluate ART restorations (6)
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3. ART-scoring system success rate of GIC and RMGI material during the study period
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4. Retention rate of GIC and RMGI material during the study period
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Barmes D. Foreword for proceedings of the IADR symposium minimal intervention techniques for dental caries. J Public Health Dent. 1996;56:131–136.
    1. Butani Y, Levy SM, Nowak AJ, Kanellis MJ, Heller K, Hartz AJ, et al. Overview of the evidence for clinical interventions in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent. 2005;27:6–11. - PubMed
    1. Cefaly DF, Barata TJ, Bresciani E, Fagundes TC, Lauris JR, Navarro MF. Clinical evaluation of multiple-surface ART restorations: 12 month follow-up. J Dent Child. 2007;74:203–208. - PubMed
    1. Croll TP, Bar-Zion Y, Segura A, Donly KJ. Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary teeth: a retrospective evaluation. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001;132:1110–1116. - PubMed
    1. Croll TP, Helpin ML, Donly KJ. Vitremer restorative cement for children: three clinicians' observations in three pediatric dental practices. ASDC J Dent Child. 2000;67:391–398. - PubMed

Substances