title: Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars: one-year results.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of this study was to compare the success rates of glass-ionomer cement restorations placed with the atraumatic restorative treatment approach and conventional cavity preparation methods.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two encapsulated, high-strength, esthetic conventional glass-ionomer cements were placed in 82 Class I and 53 Class II atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations, and an encapsulated amalgam alloy was placed in 32 Class I conventional preparations, in vital primary molars of 60 Chinese children aged 7 to 9 years.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The atraumatic restorative treatment preparations, made with hand instruments only, took approximately 50% longer to complete than did the preparations completed with conventional rotary instrumentation. After 1 year, there were no amalgam failures. For the glass-ionomer cement restorations, when the atraumatic restorative treatment method was used, significantly better survival rates were found for Class I (92.9%) than for Class II (64.7%) cavity preparations. There was also a strong trend for relatively better survival rates for the conventional cavity preparation method (86.7%) than for the atraumatic restorative treatment (64.7%) method for Class II cavity preparations. However, both the atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional methods appeared equally effective for Class I preparations.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In a clinic setting, the use of atraumatic restorative treatment hand instruments for cavity preparation is more time consuming, and the method may also provide less mechanical retention and/or bulk of glass-ionomer cement for some Class II preparations in primary molars than does the use of conventional rotary instruments.
authors.affiliation: University of British Columbia, Faculty of Dentistry, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. hkyip@hkusua.hku.hk
authors.forename: Hak-Kong
authors.initials: HK
authors.lastname: Yip
authors.forename: Roger J
authors.initials: RJ
authors.lastname: Smales
authors.forename: Chang
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Yu
authors.forename: Xu-Jun
authors.initials: XJ
authors.lastname: Gao
authors.forename: Dong-Mei
authors.initials: DM
authors.lastname: Deng
mesh_terms: D002648:Child; D003722:Dental Alloys; D003723:Dental Amalgam; D003737:Dental Cavity Preparation / Q000145:classification / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D003764:Dental Materials; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000145:classification / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D006801:Humans; D008963:Molar; D013223:Statistics as Topic; D016019:Survival Analysis; D013997:Time Factors; D014094:Tooth, Deciduous; D016896:Treatment Outcome
chemical_list: D003722:Dental Alloys; D003764:Dental Materials; C439808:Fuji IX GP Fast; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; C424245:Ketac-Molar Aplicap; D003723:Dental Amalgam