Open AccessSurvival rate of atraumatic restorative treatment: A systematic review
Author(s) -
Mahammad Shareef Hajisaheb Kotyal,
Nusrath Fareed,
Hemanth Battur,
Sanjeev Khanagar,
Bhat Manohar,
Rajeev Basapathy
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of the indian association of public health dentistry/journal of indian association of public health dentistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2350-0484
pISSN - 2319-5932
DOI - 10.4103/2319-5932.171206
Subject(s) - dentistry , medicine , systematic review , survival rate , cochrane library , restorative dentistry , molar , medline , permanent teeth , dental restoration , orthodontics , randomized controlled trial , surgery , political science , law
Background: Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach was developed in the mid-1980s to provide dental preventive and restorative care to underserved populations in areas that are out of reach. This method consists of the removal of infected (soft demineralized carious) tooth tissue with hand instruments only followed by restoring the cleaned cavity and associated pits and fissures with an adhesive restorative material. However, survival of ART restoration is a matter of intense speculation. Aim: To conduct a systematic review of the literature on the survival rate of ART restorations. Materials and Methods: A systematic search was carried out in MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases from 1998 to 2014 using the term survival of ART in permanent teeth, primary teeth, ART restorative material. Results: The analysis of abstracts led to the selection of 36 studies. The research reports a survival rate of ART restoration for <2 years, 2–5 years, and >5 years ranging from 44.8% to 100%, 24.4% to 90%, and 72.6% to 86%. Survival of ART restoration is reported to be marginally higher in permanent molars compared to their primary counterparts. Conclusion: This systematic review revealed high survival rates for single-surface ART restorations in both primary and permanent molars. However, long-term clinical studies are scarce, and a level two and level three evidence was observed