Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
https://www.revodontolunesp.com.br/article/588018a67f8c9d0a098b4d55
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
Original Article

Análise atuarial em um estudo comparativo de dois cimentos de ionômero de vidro utilizados na técnica de TRA: avaliação direta e indireta após 3 e 6 meses

Actuarial analysis in a comparative study of two glass ionomer cements used in the ART technique: direct and indirect evaluation after 3 and 6 months

Sacramento, Patrícia Almada; Borges, Ana Flávia Sanches; Puppin Rontani, Regina Maria

Downloads: 0
Views: 912

Resumo

O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar in vivo, direta e indiretamente, o desempenho clínico de dois cimentos de ionômero de vidro de alta resistência – Ketac Molar (3M) e Fuji IX (GC Int. Corp.) – utilizados no Tratamento Restaurador Atraumático. Um total de 82 crianças entre 6 e 9 anos de idade foram incluídas no estudo. O desempenho das restaurações e dos selantes foi avaliado no baseline, 3 e 6 meses após a realização dos procedimentos. As alterações das restaurações e selantes foram comparadas entre os materiais e entre os períodos de avaliação. A análise da chance acumulada de sucesso para as restaurações foi maior para Classe I do que para Classe II utilizando-se o Fuji IX, sendo verificado similar desempenho para as restaurações em Ketac Molar, porém com menor chance de ocorrência de sucesso. Não houve diferença no desempenho dos materiais utilizados tanto nas restaurações Classe I e Classe II como nos selantes. Concluiu-se que ambos os cimentos após 3 e 6 meses obtiveram alto índice de sucesso, exceto em restauração Classe II, não havendo diferença estatística entre os materiais. Apesar de ter havido perda precoce do selante para ambos os materiais, houve alta taxa de sucesso em relação à prevenção de lesões de cárie.

Palavras-chave

Cimento de ionômero de vidro, tratamento restaurador atraumático, dentes decíduos, dentes permanentes, cárie

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to evaluate in vivo, directly and indirectly, the clinical performance of two glass ionomer cements of high resistance, Ketac Molar (3M) and Fuji IX (GC Int. Corp.) used in the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment. A total of 82 children age between 6 and 9 years old had been included in this study.
The performance of the restorations and the sealants was evaluated in baseline, 3 and 6 months after the accomplishment of the procedures. The alterations of the restorations and sealants had been compared between the materials and periods of evaluation. The analysis of the accumulated rate of success for the restorations was higher for Class I than those for Class II using Fuji IX, being verified similar performance for the restorations using Ketac Molar, however with less chance of possibility of success. There was not difference in the performance of the materials used in the restorations class I, II and in the sealants. It was concluded that both cements after 3 and 6 months showed high rate of success, except in class II, did not showing significant statistically difference between the materials. Although of early loss of the sealant for both the materials, it was observed high rate of success in relation to the prevention of caries lesion.

Keywords

Glass ionomer cement, atraumatic restorative treatment, deciduous teeth, permanent teeth, caries

References



1. Barros ADJ, Bertoldi AD. Desigualdades na utilização e no acesso a serviços odontológicos: uma avaliação em nível nacional. Cienc Saúde Coletiva. 2002;4:709-17.

2. Paleinstein WV, Helderman FMN. Priorities in oral health care in non-EME countries. Int Dent J. 2002;52:30-4.

3. Smales RJ, Yip HK. The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach for the management for dental caries. Quintessence Int. 2002;33:427-32.

4. Holmgren CJ, Pilot T. Discussion from the symposium “Minimal intervention techniques for caries”. J Public Health Dent. 1996;56:161-3.

5. Frencken JE, Holmgren CJ. How effective is ART in the management of dental caries? Community Dent Oral Epdemiol. 1999;27:423-30.

6. Yip HK, Smales RJ, Ngo HC, Chu FCS. Selection of restorative materials for the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach: a review. Spec Care Dentist. 2001;21:216-21.

7. Duque C, Negrini TC, Hebling J, Spolidorio DM. Inhibitory activity of glass-ionomer cements on cariogenic bacteria. Oper Dent. 2005;30:636-40.

8. Santiago BM, Ventin DA, Primo LG, Barcelos R. Microhardness of dentine underlying ART restorations in primary molars: an in vivo pilot study. Br Dent J. 2005;199:103-6.

9. Davidovich E, Weiss E, Fuks AB, Beyth N. Surface antibacterial properties of glass ionomer cements used in atraumetic restorative treatment. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007;138:1347-52.

10. Silva RC, Zuanon ACC, Spolidorio DMP, Campos JADB. Antibacterial activity of four glass ionomer cements used in atraumetic restorative treatment. J Mater Sci. 2007;18:1859-62.

11. Yip HK, Smales RJ. Glass ionomer cements used as fissure sealants with the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach: review of literature. Int Dent J. 2002;52:67-70.

12. Mickenautsch S, Munshi J, Grosman ES. Comparative cost of ART and conventional treatment within a dental school clinic. SADJ. 2002;57:25-58.

13. Schriks MCM, van Amerong WE. Atraumatic perspective of ART: psychological and physiological aspects of treatment with and without rotary instruments. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003;31:15-20.

14. Rahimtoola S, van Amerogen E, Maher, R, Groen H. Pain related to different ways of minimal intervention in the treatment of small caries lesions. J Dent Child. 2000; 67:123-7.

15. Beltran-Aguilar ED, Estupinan-Days S, Baez R. Analysis of prevalence and trends of dental caries in the americans between the 1970s and 1990s. Int Dent J. 1999;49:322-9.

16. Yip HK., Smales RJ, Gap W, Peng D. The effects of two cavity preparation methods on the longevity of glass ionomer cement restorations: an evaluation after 12 months. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001;133:44-5.

17. Wang L, Lopes LG, Bresciane E, Lauris JR, Mondelli RF, Navarro MF. Evaluation of class I art restorations in brazilian schoolchildren: three-year results. Spec Care Dentist. 2004;24:28-33.

18. Lo EC, Luo Y, Fan MW, Wei SH. Clinical investigation of two glass-ionomer restoratives used with the atraumatic restorative treatment approach in China: two-years results. Caries Res. 2001;35:458-63.

19. Ersin NK, Candan U, Aykut A, Onçağ O, Eronat C, Kose T. A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach: results at 24 months. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137:1529-36.

20. Frencken JE, Pilot T, Songpaisan Y, Phantumvanit P. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): rationale, technique, and development. J Public Health Dent. 1996;56(3 Spec No):135-40.

21. Lo EC, Holmgren CJ, Hu D, van Palenstein Helderman W. Six-year follow up of atraumatic restorative treatment restorations placed in Chinese school children. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2007;35:387-92.

22. Smales RJ, Gao W, Ho FT. In vitro evaluation of sealing pits and fissures with newer glass- ionomer cements developed for the ART technique. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1997;21:321-3.

23. Seppä L, Forss H. Resistance of occlusal fissures to demineralization after loss of glass ionomer sealants in vitro. Pediatr Dent. 1991;13:39-42.

24. Aranda M, Garcia-Godoy F.Clinical evaluation of the retention and wear of a light cured pit and fissure glass ionomer sealant. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1995;19:273-7.

25. Mandari GJ, Frencken JE, van’t Hof MA. Six-year success rates of occlusal amalgam and glass-ionomer restorations placed using three minimal intervention approaches. Caries Res. 2003;37:246-53.
588018a67f8c9d0a098b4d55 rou Articles
Links & Downloads

Rev. odontol. UNESP

Share this page
Page Sections