Department of Paediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
School of Dentistry, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland, UK.
BMC Oral Health. 2020 Nov 11;20(1):318. doi: 10.1186/s12903-020-01298-x.
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) and the Hall Technique (HT) are both minimally invasive, non-aerosol generating procedures (non-AGPs). They seem to have never been directly compared, nor has the HT been studied in a non-clinical setting. This study compared the HT and ART restorations placed in a school setting after 36 months.
Children (5-10 yo) who had a primary molar with a dentinal occluso-proximal, cavitated carious lesion were allocated to the ART (selective removal) or HT arms.
restoration survival over 36-months (using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, log rank test, and Cox regression).
(1) occlusal vertical dimension (OVD) (1, 2, 3, 4 weeks) and (2) child self-reported discomfort; (3) treatment acceptability (immediately following interventions); (4) Child Oral Health Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL), before treatment and after 6 months and (5) a post hoc analysis of time to tooth exfoliation (1, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36 months).
One-hundred and thirty-one children (ART = 65; HT = 66) were included (mean age = 8.1 ± 1.2). At 36 months, 112 (85.5%) children were followed-up.
restoration survival rates ART = 32.7% (SE = 0.08; 95% CI 0.17-0.47); HT = 93.4% (0.05; 0.72-0.99), p < 0.001; Secondary outcomes: (1) OVD returned to pre-treatment state within 4 weeks; (2) treatment discomfort was higher for the HT (p = 0.018); (3) over 70% of children and parents showed a high acceptability for treatments, with crown aesthetics being a concern for around 23% of parents; (4) Child OHRQoL improved after 6 months; and (5) teeth treated with the HT exfoliated earlier than those in the ART group (p = 0.007).
Both ART and the HT were acceptable to child participants and their parents and all parents thought both restorations protected their child's tooth. However, the crown appearance concerned almost a quarter of parents in the HT arm. Children experienced less discomfort in the ART group. Although both treatments can be performed in a non-clinical setting and have the advantage of being non-aerosol generating procedures (non-AGPs), the HT had almost three times higher survival rates (93.4%) for restoring primary molar occluso-proximal cavities compared to ART (32.7%).
This trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02569047), 5th October 2015. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT02569047?cond=Hall+Technique+Atraumatic+Rest orative+Treatment&draw=2&rank=2.
微创、非气胶生成术(非 AGP)的无创伤性修复治疗(ART)和 Hall 技术(HT)似乎从未被直接比较过,也从未在非临床环境中研究过 HT。本研究比较了在学校环境中放置 36 个月后的 HT 和 ART 修复体。
患有牙本质咬合近-颊面、有空腔龋坏病变的第一磨牙的儿童(5-10 岁)被分配到 ART(选择性去除)或 HT 组。
36 个月时的修复体存活率(使用 Kaplan-Meier 生存分析、对数秩检验和 Cox 回归)。
(1)咬合垂直距离(OVD)(1、2、3、4 周)和(2)儿童自我报告的不适;(3)治疗可接受性(干预后立即);(4)儿童口腔健康相关生活质量(OHRQoL),治疗前和治疗后 6 个月;(5)事后分析牙齿脱落时间(1、6、12、18、24、30、36 个月)。
共纳入 131 名儿童(ART=65;HT=66)(平均年龄 8.1±1.2 岁)。在 36 个月时,有 112 名(85.5%)儿童接受了随访。
ART 的修复体存活率为 32.7%(SE=0.08;95%CI 0.17-0.47);HT 为 93.4%(0.05;0.72-0.99),p<0.001;次要结果:(1)OVD 在 4 周内恢复到治疗前状态;(2)HT 治疗时的不适更高(p=0.018);(3)超过 70%的儿童和家长对治疗有较高的可接受性,约 23%的家长对牙冠美观有顾虑;(4)儿童 OHRQoL 在 6 个月后得到改善;(5)HT 治疗的牙齿比 ART 组更早脱落(p=0.007)。
ART 和 HT 都被儿童参与者及其家长接受,所有家长都认为这两种修复都保护了孩子的牙齿。然而,将近四分之一的 HT 组家长对牙冠的外观表示担忧。ART 组的儿童经历的不适较少。尽管这两种治疗方法都可以在非临床环境中进行,并且具有非气胶生成术(非 AGP)的优势,但 HT 修复近-颊面龋坏的第一磨牙窝沟的存活率(93.4%)几乎是 ART(32.7%)的三倍。
该试验在 ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT02569047)注册,2015 年 10 月 5 日。https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT02569047?cond=Hall+Technique+Atraumatic+Restorative+Treatment&draw=2&rank=2.