High-viscosity glass-ionomer vs. composite resin restorations in persons with disability: Five-year follow-up of clinical trial.

The aim of this clinical trial was to compare the 5-year cumulative survival of atraumatic restorative treatment restorations using high-viscosity glass-ionomer restorations (ART/HVGIC) and conventional resin composite restorations (CRT) placed in patients with intellectual and/or physical disability. Patients referred for restorative care to a special care service in Córdoba, Argentina, were recruited. Patients and/or caregivers were provided with written and verbal information regarding treatment options and selected the alternative they preferred. The treatment protocols were ART (hand instruments/HVGIC) in the clinic or CRT (rotary instrumentation/resin composite) in the clinic or under general anaesthesia (GA). Two independent, trained and calibrated examiners evaluated restoration survival using established ART codes after 6, 12, 24, 36 and 60 months. The proportional hazard model with frailty corrections provided survival estimates. Jackknife errors were used to test 5-year results. Sixty-six patients (13.6 ± 7.8 years) with 16 different medical conditions participated. CRT in the clinic proved feasible for five patients (13%), and 14 patients received CRT under GA (21%). ART was provided for 47 patients (71.2%). A total number of 298 dentine carious lesions were restored in primary and permanent teeth (182 ART; 116 CRT). Four patients died between the 3 and 5-year follow up. Percentage survival and jackknife standard error were calculated and were significantly higher for all ART/HVGIC restorations (90.2% ± 2.6) than for all CRT restorations (82.8% ± 5.3), 5 years after placement (p=0.044). These 5-year follow-up results confirm that ART/HVGIC is an effective treatment protocol for patients with disability, equal to that of conventional resin composite restoration. The results of this clinical trial support the use of ART as an evidence-based treatment resource contributing to the reduction of inequalities in access to oral health care among people with disability.

Three-year survival of ART high-viscosity glass-ionomer and resin composite restorations in people with disability.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the 3-year cumulative survival rate of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional resin composite restorations (CRT) placed in persons with disability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients referred for restorative care to the Haemophilia Foundation special care service were treated by one of two specialists. Patients and/or caregivers were provided with written and verbal information regarding treatment options and selected the alternative they preferred. Treatment was provided as selected unless this option proved clinically unfeasible when an alternative technique was proposed. The treatment protocols were ART (hand instruments/high-viscosity glass-ionomer) in the clinic or CRT (rotary instrumentation/resin composite) in the clinic or under general anaesthesia (GA). After 6, 12, 24 and 36 months, two independent, trained and calibrated examiners evaluated restoration survival using established ART codes. The proportional hazard model with frailty corrections gave survival estimates over 3 years. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients (13.6 ± 7.8 years) with 16 different disability profiles participated. CRT in the clinic proved feasible for five patients (13%), and 14 patients received CRT under GA (21%). ART was used for 47 patients (71.2%). Altogether, 298 dentine carious lesions were restored in primary and permanent teeth (182 ART; 116 CRT). The 3-year cumulative survival rates and jackknife standard errors for the 182 ART and 116 CRT restorations were 94.8 ± 2.1 and 82.8 ± 5.3%, respectively (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The 3-year follow-up results confirm that ART is an effective treatment protocol. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Patients with disability, many of whom have difficulty coping with CRT, may benefit from the ART approach.

Acceptability, feasibility and perceived satisfaction of the use of the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment approach for people with disability.

Unmet caries treatment need is prevalent among people with disability, partly due to difficulties cooperating with conventional dental treatment. This study compared Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) with conventional restorative treatment (CRT) in the clinic and under general anaesthesia (GA), in terms of feasibility, acceptability and respondent satisfaction in patients referred for special care dentistry. Patients referred for dental restorative care were treated using either ART or CRT approach. Acceptance, feasibility and level of satisfaction with the treatment provided were assessed. ANOVA with Bonferroni correction and Chi-square tests investigated differences in age, gender and Visual Analogue Scale satisfaction scores. A total of 66 patients (mean 13.6 ± 7.8 years) were included and 43 respondents chose ART. ART was feasible for 47 patients, with optimal placement of restorations for 79% of all patients receiving ART. CRT in the clinic was chosen by 15 respondents and was feasible for 5 (33%). Local anaesthesia was required for 4 of the 47 patients receiving ART and for 3 of the 5 patients receiving CRT in the clinic. Neither ART nor CRT could be performed in the clinic for 14 patients who were treated under GA (21%). Respondent satisfaction was higher for those receiving ART than CRT (in the clinic and under GA). It was concluded that ART is a satisfactory, feasible, acceptable and effective approach to restorative dental treatment in patients with disability who have difficulty coping with conventional treatment. More research is now required to confirm these results in a larger study population.

Acceptability, feasibility and perceived satisfaction of the use of the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment approach for people with disability

Unmet caries treatment need is prevalent among people with disability, partly due to difficulties cooperating with conventional dental treatment. This study compared Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) with conventional restorative treatment (CRT) in the clinic and under general anaesthesia (GA), in terms of feasibility, acceptability and respondent satisfaction in patients referred for special care dentistry. Patients referred for dental restorative care were treated using either ART or CRT approach. Acceptance, feasibility and level of satisfaction with the treatment provided were assessed. ANOVA with Bonferroni correction and Chi-square tests investigated differences in age, gender and Visual Analogue Scale satisfaction scores. A total of 66 patients (mean 13.6 ± 7.8 years) were included and 43 respondents chose ART. ART was feasible for 47 patients, with optimal placement of restorations for 79% of all patients receiving ART. CRT in the clinic was chosen by 15 respondents and was feasible for 5 (33%). Local anaesthesia was required for 4 of the 47 patients receiving ART and for 3 of the 5 patients receiving CRT in the clinic. Neither ART nor CRT could be performed in the clinic for 14 patients who were treated under GA (21%). Respondent satisfaction was higher for those receiving ART than CRT (in the clinic and under GA). It was concluded that ART is a satisfactory, feasible, acceptable and effective approach to restorative dental treatment in patients with disability who have difficulty coping with conventional treatment. More research is now required to confirm these results in a larger study population.

One year survival of ART and conventional restorations in patients with disability.

BACKGROUND: Providing restorative treatment for persons with disability may be challenging and has been related to the patient's ability to cope with the anxiety engendered by treatment and to cooperate fully with the demands of the clinical situation. The aim of the present study was to assess the survival rate of ART restorations compared to conventional restorations in people with disability referred for special care dentistry. METHODS: Three treatment protocols were distinguished: ART (hand instruments/high-viscosity glass-ionomer); conventional restorative treatment (rotary instrumentation/resin composite) in the clinic (CRT/clinic) and under general anaesthesia (CRT/GA). Patients were referred for restorative care to a special care centre and treated by one of two specialists. Patients and/or their caregivers were provided with written and verbal information regarding the proposed techniques, and selected the type of treatment they were to receive. Treatment was provided as selected but if this option proved clinically unfeasible one of the alternative techniques was subsequently proposed. Evaluation of restoration survival was performed by two independent trained and calibrated examiners using established ART restoration assessment codes at 6 months and 12 months. The Proportional Hazard model with frailty corrections was applied to calculate survival estimates over a one year period. RESULTS: 66 patients (13.6 ± 7.8 years) with 16 different medical disorders participated. CRT/clinic proved feasible for 5 patients (7.5%), the ART approach for 47 patients (71.2%), and 14 patients received CRT/GA (21.2%). In all, 298 dentine carious lesions were restored in primary and permanent teeth, 182 (ART), 21 (CRT/clinic) and 95 (CRT/GA). The 1-year survival rates and jackknife standard error of ART and CRT restorations were 97.8 ± 1.0% and 90.5 ± 3.2%, respectively (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: These short-term results indicate that ART appears to be an effective treatment protocol for treating patients with disability restoratively, many of whom have difficulty coping with the conventional restorative treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Registration: NTR 4400.

Suitability of ART approach for managing caries lesions in people with disability-Experts' opinion.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to obtain the opinions of experts in Special Care Dentistry (SCD) regarding the suitability of the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach for the treatment of carious lesions in persons with disability. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty expert participants from around the world, joining the SCD Task Force meeting, Education Committee of the International Association of Disability and Oral Health (Antalya, Turkey, 2011), completed a questionnaire survey. Frequency distributions of variables were analysed using Chi-Square test for differences between variables. RESULTS: All respondents reported having full or moderate knowledge of ART (23.3% and 63.3%, respectively) and 66.7% indicated that they felt the technique was useful for this population. However, only 50% of respondents used the technique regularly in their practice and five (16.7%) replied that they would never use it, even if a favourable evidence base for ART use in this population became available. The barriers to the introduction of ART to SCD are discussed and the need for training and further research highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to the implementation of ART in practice were placement of the restoration under difficult conditions and the dentist's pre-conception of the technique as being 'lower quality dentistry'. Experts suggested that some of these barriers might be overcome by improving the evidence base in favour of the technique, specifically in the population with disability.