4.6 Article

5-Year survival of ART restorations with and without cavity disinfection

期刊

JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY
卷 37, 期 6, 页码 468-474

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2009.03.002

关键词

Atraumatic Restorative Treatment; Cavity disinfection; Glass-ionomer cement; Chlorhexidine solution; Survival; Egypt

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The null-hypothesis tested was that there is no difference between the survival of ART restorations with, and without, cavity disinfection among adolescents after 5 years. Methods: Eligible students were allocated to one of the treatment groups. One operator placed a total of 90 restorations, 45 each per treatment group, in ninety 14-15 year olds. Restorations were evaluated on replica models at baseline and after 1 and 5 years, by two calibrated and independent evaluators using the ART criteria. The independent variables were gender, mean DMFT score at baseline, cavity size (small/large), cavity type (single-/multiple surfaces) and disinfected cavity (yes/no). Statistical analyses were done using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Results: The cumulative survival percentage and standard error for the 61 ART restorations with and without disinfection at evaluation year 5 were 85% (S.E. = 6.1%) and 80% (S.E. = 7.1%), respectively: not significantly different (p = 0.37) from each other. The cumulative survival percentage and standard error for all ART restorations was 97% (S.E. = 2.0%) at evaluation year 1 and 82% (S.E. = 4.7%) at year 5, and it was 85% (S.E. = 5.4%) for single- and 77% (S.E. = 9%) for multiple-surface ART restorations at year 5. The cumulative survival percentage of all ART restorations at evaluation year 5 was statistically significant higher for boys than for girls (p = 0.03). Conclusions: Disinfecting a cavity cleaned according to ART with a 2% chlorhexidine solution is unnecessary. It is useful to introduce the ART approach systematically into the healthcare system in Egypt. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据