ArticleClinical oral investigations2014
Amalgam and ART restorations in children: a controlled clinical trial.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2023Pooled it
- Survival percentages of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations and sealants in posterior teeth: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2018Pooled it
- Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Subjective versus objective, polymer bur-based selective carious tissue removal: 1-year interim analysis of a randomized clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2020Trial
- One year survival of ART and conventional restorations in patients with disability.BMC oral health · 2014Trial
- Effect of different protocols for treating cavities in primary molars on the quality of life of children in Brazil--1 year follow-up.International dental journal · 2013Trial
- Article
- Does the liner material influence pulpal vitality in deep carious cavities submitted to selective caries removal? A network meta-analysis review.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Review
- Article
- Physical property investigation of contemporary glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials.Clinical oral investigations · 2019Article
- Article
- New Dual-cure Resin-based Material in Occlusal and Occluso-proximal Restorations of Primary Teeth: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aims of this study were to compare 2-year cumulative survival rates of amalgam and atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations in primary molars and to investigate the determinants of the survival rate of restorations. MATERIALS AND
methodsA controlled clinical trial using a parallel group design was carried out on 258 children aged 6-7 years old, allocated to two treatment groups: conventional restorative treatment using amalgam and ART using high-viscosity glass ionomer. A total of 364 amalgam restorations and 386 ART restorations were placed by three pedodontists in 126 and 158 children, respectively, and were evaluated after 0.5, 1, and 2 years. Restorations were placed in vital primary molars with neither pain nor signs of pulp involvement. The survival analysis was conducted using the proportional hazard rate regression model with frailty correction.
resultsThe 2-year cumulative survival rates for all amalgam (77.3%) and ART (73.5%) restorations were not statistically significantly different, but there was an effect of "type of surface" (single/multiple) and "cavity filling time" on the survival rates. Both amalgam and ART single-surface restorations had higher survival rates than multiple-surface restorations of the same material. Secondary caries was responsible for 36 and 38% of failures in amalgam and ART restorations, respectively. Mean time for restoring all type of cavities with amalgam and ART restorations was 13.6 and 13.7 min, respectively.
conclusionsAmalgam and ART restorations presented similar survival rates over a 2-year period for all, single-surface, and multiple-surface restorations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In the cause of finding alternatives to amalgam, ART restorations using high-viscosity glass ionomer might be a suitable option for managing cavitated dentine carious lesions in vital primary molars.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.