journal article·2021-11-06Open access

Influence of Cavity Size on the Survival of Single Surface Atraumatic Restorative Treatment Using Glass Ionomer Cement with or without Chlorhexidine Diacetate—A Randomized Trial

Roshan Noor Mohamed, Sakeenabi Basha, Jooie S. Joshi, Poornima Parameshwarappa

Applied Sciences· Volume 11· Issue 21

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to assess the influence of cavity size on the survival of conventional and CHX modified GIC in single surface primary molars receiving Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART). A randomized controlled trial with a split-mouth design was conducted on 90 children with symmetrical bilateral single surface carious lesions on primary molars. The teeth were randomly allotted to the conventional GIC group (group 1, n = 90) and CHX modified GIC group (group 2, n = 90). Both groups received atraumatic restorative treatment under rubber dam isolation. The cavity size was measured in terms of depth, mesiodistal, and buccolingual dimensions. The survival of ART restorations was measured after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The difference in proportion was tested using the Kruskal–Wallis H test, and survival curve estimation was carried out using the Kaplan–Meier method. The overall survival of all ART restorations was 83.3% at 24 months for the total sample. The survival of conventional GIC at 24 months was 83.9%, and for CHX-modified GIC was 82.7% (p > 0.05). The collective overall success of 65.1% was seen in the cavity volume category of 10–29.9 mm3. CHX modified GIC showed high survival percentage (60%) with depth >3 mm. To conclude, no significant difference was observed in the overall survival percentage of conventional and CHX modified GIC. Survival percentage was highest for cavities with a volume of 10–19.9 mm3.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments · Dental Research and COVID-19

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Taif University, P.O. Box 11099, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia

Department of Community Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Taif University, P.O. Box 11099, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia

Department of Pediatric Dentistry, College of Dental Sciences, Davangere 577004, India

References (30)

Show source-provided references
1. Twenty-five-year atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach: A comprehensive overview10.1007/s00784-012-0783-4 ↗
2. Saber, A.M., El-Housseiny, A.A., and AlAmoudi, N.M. (2019). Atraumatic Restorative Treatment and Interim Therapeutic Restoration: A Review of the Literature. Dent. J., 7.10.3390/dj7010028 ↗
3. Management of Dental Caries with Atraumatic Restorative Treatment Under Field Condition in Primary Schools in Oyo State, Nigeria
4. Atraumatic restorative treatment and minimal intervention dentistry10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.664 ↗
5. A prospective and randomized clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of ART restorations with high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement versus conventional restora-tions with resin composite in Class II cavities of permanent teeth: Two-year follow-up10.1590/1678-7757-2020-0609 ↗
6. Clinical evaluation of a new art material: Nanoparticulated resin-modified glass ionomer ce-ment10.4103/2231-0762.109361 ↗
7. Selection of restorative materials for the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach: A review10.1111/j.1754-4505.2001.tb00257.x ↗
8. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (2020). Pediatric restorative dentistry. the Reference Manual of Pediatric Dentistry, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry.
9. Sidhu, S.K., and Nicholson, J.W. (2016). A Review of Glass-Ionomer Cements for Clinical Dentistry. J. Funct. Biomater., 7.10.3390/jfb7030016 ↗
10. Chlorhexidine to improve the survival of ART restorations: A systematic re-view and meta-analysis10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103491 ↗
11. Antibacterial effect and physical properties of chitosan and chlorhexi-dine-cetrimide-modified glass ionomer cements10.4103/0970-4388.199224 ↗
12. Comparative evaluation of antimi-crobial efficacy of glass ionomer cement added with propolis, chitosan, and chlorhexidine against Streptococcus mu-tans and Lactobacillus acidophilus: An in vitro study10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_322_20 ↗
13. Inhibition of Residual Cariogenic Bacteria in Atraumatic Restorative Treatment by Chlorhexidine: Disinfection or Incorporation
14. Addition of Chlorhexidine Gluconate to a Glass Ionomer Cement: A Study on Mechanical, Physical and Antibacterial Properties10.1590/0103-6440201302328 ↗
15. In vitro and in vivo evaluations of glass-ionomer cement containing chlorhexidine for Atraumatic Re-storative Treatment10.1590/1678-7757-2016-0195 ↗
16. Factors affecting success rate of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103526 ↗
17. Influence of the cavity-size on the survival rate of proximal ART restorations in primary molars10.1111/j.1365-263X.2009.01013.x ↗
18. Survival of occlusal ART restorations using high-viscosity glass-ionomer with and without chlorhexidine: A 2-year split-mouth quad-ruple-blind randomized controlled clinical trial10.1016/j.jare.2019.01.015 ↗
19. Influence of different isolation methods on the survival of proximal ART restorations in primary molars after two years10.1007/BF03262729 ↗
20. Influence of the experience of operator and assistant on the survival rate of proximal ART restorations: Two-year results10.1007/BF03262687 ↗
21. Survival of occlusal ART restorations in primary molars placed in school environment and hospital dental setup- one year follow-up study
22. Frencken, J.E., Liang, S., and Zhang, Q. (2021). Survival estimates of atraumatic restorative treatment versus traditional restorative treatment: A systematic review with meta-analyses. Br. Dent. J., 1–11.10.1038/s41415-021-2701-0 ↗
23. Survival percentages of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations and sealants in posterior teeth: An updated systematic review and meta-analyses10.1007/s00784-018-2625-5 ↗
24. Provision of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) restorations to Chinese pre-school children—A 30-month evaluation10.1046/j.1365-263x.2001.00232.x ↗
25. Comparison of two tooth-saving preparation techniques for one surface cavities
26. Comparable survival rate of class I ART in primary dentition (GIC and Amalgam) in Beirut after 2 years of follow-up10.1046/j.1365-263X.2003.00455.x ↗
27. Three-year survival of single- and two-surface ART restorations in a high-caries child population10.1007/s00784-007-0138-8 ↗
28. Effectiveness of glass-ionomer (ART) and amalgam res-torations in the deciduous dentition: Results after 3 years10.1159/000066531 ↗
29. Minimal intervention dentistry for early childhood caries and child dental anxiety: A randomized con-trolled trial10.1111/adj.12492 ↗
30. Survival of ART restorations assessed using selected FDI and modified ART restoration criteria10.1007/s00784-010-0403-0 ↗