Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
One year Survival Rate of Ketac Molar versus Vitro Molar for Occlusoproximal ART Restorations: a RCT
Anna Luisa de Brito, Pacheco; Isabel Cristina, Olegário; Clarissa Calil, Bonifácio; Ana Flávia Bissoto, Calvo; José Carlos Pettorossi, Imparato; Daniela Prócida, Raggio.
  • Anna Luisa de Brito, Pacheco; Faculdade São Leopoldo Mandic. Faculty of Odontology. Dental Research Center. Campinas. BR
  • Isabel Cristina, Olegário; Universidade de São Paulo. Dental School. Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry Department. São Paulo. BR
  • Clarissa Calil, Bonifácio; Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam. Department of Cariology, Endodontics and Pedodontology. Amsterdam. NL
  • Ana Flávia Bissoto, Calvo; Universidade de São Paulo. Dental School. Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry Department. São Paulo. BR
  • José Carlos Pettorossi, Imparato; Universidade de São Paulo. Dental School. Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry Department. São Paulo. BR
  • Daniela Prócida, Raggio; Universidade de São Paulo. Dental School. Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry Department. São Paulo. BR
Braz. oral res. (Online) ; 31: e88, 2017. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS | ID: biblio-952077
ABSTRACT
Abstract Good survival rates for single-surface Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) restorations have been reported, while multi-surface ART restorations have not shown similar results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival rate of occluso-proximal ART restorations using two different filling materials Ketac Molar EasyMix (3M ESPE) and Vitro Molar (DFL). A total of 117 primary molars with occluso-proximal caries lesions were selected in 4 to 8 years old children in Barueri city, Brazil. Only one tooth was selected per child. The subjetcs were randomly allocated in two groups according to the filling material. All treatments were performed following the ART premises and all restorations were evaluated after 2, 6 and 12 months. Restoration survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Log-rank test, while Cox regression analysis was used for testing association with clinical factors (α = 5%). There was no difference in survival rate between the materials tested, (HR = 1.60, CI = 0.98-2.62, p = 0.058). The overall survival rate of restorations was 42.74% and the survival rate per group was Ketac Molar = 50,8% and Vitro Molar G2 = 34.5%). Cox regression test showed no association between the analyzed clinical variables and the success of the restorations. After 12 months evaluation, no difference in the survival rate of ART occluso-proximal restorations was found between tested materials.
Subject(s)


Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Main subject: Dental Atraumatic Restorative Treatment / Glass Ionomer Cements Type of study: Controlled clinical trial / Prognostic study Limits: Child / Child, preschool / Female / Humans / Male Language: English Journal: Braz. oral res. (Online) Journal subject: Dentistry Year: 2017 Type: Article Affiliation country: Brazil / Netherlands Institution/Affiliation country: Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam/NL / Faculdade São Leopoldo Mandic/BR / Universidade de São Paulo/BR

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Main subject: Dental Atraumatic Restorative Treatment / Glass Ionomer Cements Type of study: Controlled clinical trial / Prognostic study Limits: Child / Child, preschool / Female / Humans / Male Language: English Journal: Braz. oral res. (Online) Journal subject: Dentistry Year: 2017 Type: Article Affiliation country: Brazil / Netherlands Institution/Affiliation country: Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam/NL / Faculdade São Leopoldo Mandic/BR / Universidade de São Paulo/BR