Yu C, Gao X J, Deng D M, Yip H K, Smales R J
Int Dent J. 2004 Feb;54(1):42-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2004.tb00251.x.
To compare the survival of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations placed in a dental clinic setting using both the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach with hand instruments, and conventional cavity preparation with rotary instruments.
Two encapsulated high-strength conventional GICs (Fuji IX GP, Ketac-Molar Aplicap) were placed in 82 Class I and 53 Class II preparations and one encapsulated non-gamma 2 amalgam alloy (GK-amalgam) was placed in 32 Class I preparations, in the primary molars of 60 Chinese children with a mean age of 7.40 +/- 1.24 (SD) years. Thus, 9 treatment groups were formed.
After two years, there were no significant survival differences found among 7 of the 9 treatment groups (p = 0.99). However, two groups comprising Fuji IX GP and Ketac-Molar Aplicap placed in Class II cavities prepared using the ART approach showed significantly lower restoration survivals (p < 0.001). Only 3 of the 72 initially sealed fissures adjacent to the restorations appeared to retain any GIC material.
In a clinic setting, both the ART hand instrument and conventional rotary instrument methods were equally suitable for high Class I restoration survival, but not for Class II restoration survival where the conventional cavity preparation method was preferable.
比较在牙科诊所环境中，使用手动器械的非创伤性修复治疗（ART）方法和使用旋转器械的传统窝洞预备方法放置玻璃离子水门汀（GIC）修复体后的存留率。
将两种封装的高强度传统GIC（富士IX GP、Ketac-Molar Aplicap）放置于82个I类洞和53个II类洞预备中，将一种封装的非γ2汞合金（GK汞合金）放置于32个I类洞预备中，这些预备位于60名中国儿童的乳磨牙中，儿童平均年龄为7.40±1.24（标准差）岁。由此形成9个治疗组。
两年后，9个治疗组中的7个组之间未发现显著的存留差异（p = 0.99）。然而，使用ART方法预备的II类洞中放置富士IX GP和Ketac-Molar Aplicap的两个组显示修复体存留率显著较低（p < 0.001）。修复体邻近的72条最初封闭的裂隙中只有3条似乎仍保留有任何GIC材料。
在临床环境中，ART手动器械方法和传统旋转器械方法对于I类洞高修复体存留率同样适用，但对于II类洞修复体存留率则不然，此时传统窝洞预备方法更可取。
