Loading…
Silver diamine fluoride modified atraumatic restorative treatment compared to conventional restorative technique on carious primary molars–A randomized controlled trial
To compare the success of silver diamine fluoride-modified atraumatic restorative technique (SMART) with that of the conventional drill and fill method in restoring carious lesions in primary molars. Children (4–8years old) reporting to a tertiary care hospital setting with asymptomatic cavitated de...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of dentistry 2023-11, Vol.138, p.104698-104698, Article 104698 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | To compare the success of silver diamine fluoride-modified atraumatic restorative technique (SMART) with that of the conventional drill and fill method in restoring carious lesions in primary molars.
Children (4–8years old) reporting to a tertiary care hospital setting with asymptomatic cavitated dentinal carious lesions in primary molars were randomly allocated to two groups; SMART and Conventional; and subsequently restored with Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC). Follow-up evaluations were carried out by blinded independent evaluator at 6-months intervals to assess the status of restorations. Primary outcome was the success of restorations at 24 months and the secondary outcome was the child's behaviour and acceptance of the treatment at the time of interventions. Two sample Z-test of proportion, logistic regression analysis and Chi-square test were used to compare the outcomes in two groups.
A total of 226 children (SMART group, 112 and conventional, 114) were included with 280 and 282 GIC restorations placed by the SMART and the conventional method respectively. At 24-months, 459 (81.6 %) primary molars were available for evaluation. Success rates of restorations was 38.4 % and 45.8 % % in SMART and conventional groups respectively (p = 0.105). The rate of acceptability of treatment in the SMART and conventional group was 79 % and 56 % (p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0300-5712 1879-176X |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104698 |