Abstract 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.

Abstract The aim was to test the null-hypothesis that there is no difference in the cumulative survival rate of retained composite resin (CR) sealants and a high-viscosity glass-ionomer Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) sealant in first permanent molars calculated according to the traditional and the modified retention assessment criteria over a period of 3 years. This cluster-randomized controlled clinical trial consisted of 123 schoolchildren, 6–7-years-old. At baseline, high-caries risk pits and fissures of fully erupted first permanent molars were treated with CR and ART sealants. Evaluations were performed after 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 years. Retention was scored for free-smooth surface and for each of three sections into which the occlusal surface had been divided. The modified criterion differed from the traditional in that it determined an occlusal sealant to be a failure when at least one section contained no visible sealant material. Data were analysed according to the PHREG model with frailty correction, Wald-test, ANOVA and t-test, using the Jackknife procedure. The cumulative survival rates for retained CR and ART sealants in free-smooth and occlusal surfaces for both criteria were not statistically significantly different over the 3 years. A higher percentage of retained CR sealants on occlusal surfaces was observed at longer evaluations. Cumulative survival rates were statistically significantly lower for the modified criterion in comparison to the traditional. The modified retention assessment criterion should be used in future sealant-retention studies.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the magnitude of the barriers to the practice of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) as perceived by dental practitioners working in pilot dental clinics, and determine the influence of these barriers on the practice of ART. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A validated and tested questionnaire on barriers that may hinder the practice of ART was administered to 20 practitioners working in 13 pilot clinics. Factor analysis was performed to generate barrier factors. These were patient load, management support, cost sharing, ART skills and operator opinion. The pilot clinics kept records of teeth extracted; teeth restored by conventional approach and teeth restored by ART approach. These treatment records were used to compute the percentage of ART restorations to total teeth treated, percentage of ART restorations to total teeth restored and percentage of total restorations to total teeth treated. The mean barrier scores were generated and compared to independent variables, using the t-test. The influence of barriers to ART-related dependent variables was determined using Pearson correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Mean barrier values were low, indicating low influence on ART practice. Female practitioners had higher scores on patient load than male practitioners (p = 0.003). Assistant Dental Officers had higher scores on cost sharing than Dental Therapists (p = 0.024). Practitioners working in urban clinics had higher mean scores on patient load than those who worked in rural clinics (p = 0.0008). All barrier factors were negatively correlated with ART practice indices but all had insignificant association with ART practice indices. CONCLUSION: The barriers studied were of low magnitude, with no significant impact on practice of ART in dental clinics in the pilot area.

The aim of this study was to describe the attitude and subjective norm of dental practitioners towards practicing the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) in Tanzania. A pre-tested questionnaire on attitudes and subjective norms to practice ART was mailed to all 147 dental practitioners working in the regional and district government clinics. The independent variables were: gender, working experience, qualification and ever heard of ART. The dependent variables were: attitude, subjective norm and intention to practice ART. Chi-square tests and multiple regression analysis were used to test for effects between independent and dependent variables. Significance level was set at 5%. A total of 138 practitioners returned completed questionnaires. More experienced dental practitioners encountered moderate social pressure than less experienced dental practitioners, who met strong social pressure (p=0.045). A total of 73.2% of dental practitioners felt that ART was worth introducing in Tanzania, 92.8% recommended ART training for all dental practitioners and 97.8% recommended inclusion of ART in dental curricula. Positive attitude, strong subjective norm and high intention to practice ART were recorded in 76.3%, 28.1% and 90.6% of the practitioners, respectively. Only subjective norm had a statistically significant influence on the intention to practice ART (p<0.0001). The results indicated that dental practitioners were willing to have ART introduced in Tanzania and had positive attitudes towards practicing this technique. Nevertheless, their intention to perform ART was strongly influenced by social pressures. Therefore, in order to have a successful introduction of ART in Tanzania, people who matter in the daily practice of dental practitioners need to accept and appraise the ART approach positively.