Frencken J E, van't Hof M A, Taifour D, Al-Zaher I
WHO Collaborating Centre for Oral Health Care Planning and Future Scenarios, Radboud University Medical Centre, College of Dental Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2007 Jun;35(3):207-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2006.00322.x.
The Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach was compared with the traditional amalgam (TA) approach in order to test their appropriateness to complement a preventive and educational school oral health programme in Syria.
Using a parallel group design, 370 and 311 grade 2 children were randomly assigned to the ART and the TA group respectively. Eight dentists placed 1117 single- and multiple-surface restorations. A modified actuarial method was used to estimate survival curves. The jackknife method was applied to calculate the standard error in the cumulative survival percentages.
A statistically significant difference in cumulative survival percentages between single-surface non-occlusal ART and comparable amalgam restorations was observed after 4.3, 5.3 and 6.3 years. The survival of single-surface non-occlusal ART posterior restorations (80.2 +/- 4.9%) was statistically significantly higher than that of occlusal posterior ART restorations (64.8 +/- 3.9%) at evaluation year 6.3. There was no statistically significant difference observed between survival percentages of large (55.8 +/- 10%) and that of small (69.2 +/- 4.6%) single-surface posterior ART restorations after 6.3 years. There was an operator effect observed for single-surface ART and comparable amalgam restorations. Secondary caries was observed in 2.3% of single-surface ART restorations and in 3.7% of single-surface amalgam restorations during the 6.3 year observation period.
The ART approach provided higher survival percentages for single-surface restorations than the TA approach over 6.3 years and is therefore appropriate for use in school oral health programmes. Secondary caries was only a minor reason for ART restorations to fail. An operator effect was observed for both treatment approaches.
比较非创伤性修复治疗（ART）方法与传统汞合金（TA）方法，以测试它们在叙利亚补充预防性和教育性学校口腔健康计划的适用性。
采用平行组设计，分别将370名和311名二年级儿童随机分配到ART组和TA组。8名牙医进行了1117个单面和多面修复。使用改良精算方法估计生存曲线。采用刀切法计算累积生存百分比的标准误差。
在4.3年、5.3年和6.3年后，观察到单面非咬合ART修复与可比汞合金修复在累积生存百分比上存在统计学显著差异。在6.3年评估时，单面非咬合ART后牙修复的生存率（80.2±4.9%）在统计学上显著高于咬合后牙ART修复的生存率（64.8±3.9%）。6.3年后，大单面后牙ART修复的生存率（55.8±10%）与小单面后牙ART修复的生存率（69.2±4.6%）之间未观察到统计学显著差异。观察到单面ART修复和可比汞合金修复存在操作者效应。在6.3年观察期内，2.3% 的单面ART修复和3.7% 的单面汞合金修复出现继发龋。
在6.3年期间，ART方法比TA方法为单面修复提供了更高的生存率，因此适用于学校口腔健康计划。继发龋只是ART修复失败的一个次要原因。两种治疗方法均观察到操作者效应。
