CONCLUSION ART restorations have similar survival rate compared to conventional treatment and can be considered an option to restore occlusoproximal cavities in primary molars
BACKGROUND A previous systematic review showed that atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) can be an option to restore the occlusoproximal cavities in primary teeth ; however , few studies fulfilled the criteria of inclusion to generate a high level of evidence .
AIM To up date the existing systematic review and address questions regarding survival rate of ART restorations compared to the conventional approach in occlusoproximal cavities in primary molars .
Cost-effectiveness of ART restorations in elderly adults: a randomized clinical trial.
BACKGROUND As the world population ages , the requirement for cost-effective methods of treating chronic disease conditions increases . In terms of oral health , there is a rapidly increasing number of dentate elderly with a high burden of maintenance . Population surveys indicate that older individuals are keeping their teeth for longer and are a higher caries risk group . Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ( ART ) could be suitable for patients in nursing homes or house-bound elderly , but very little research has been done on its use in adults . OBJECTIVES To compare the cost-effectiveness of ART  and a conventional technique ( CT )  for restoring carious lesions as part of a preventive and restorative programme for older adults . METHODS In this r and omized clinical trial , 82 patients with carious lesions were r and omly allocated to receive either ART or conventional restorations .  Treatment costs were measured based on treatment time , material s and labour . For the ART group , the cost of care provided by a dentist was also compared to the cost of having a hygienist to provide treatment . Effectiveness was measured using percentage of restorations that survived after a year . RESULTS Eighty-two patients received 260 restorations , that is , 128 ART and 132 conventional restorations . 91.1 % of the restorations were on one surface only . After a year , 252 restorations were assessed in 80 patients .  The average cost for ART and conventional restorations  was € 16.86 and € 28.71 respectively ; the restoration survival percentages were 91.1 % and 97.7 % , respectively . This result ed in a cost-effectiveness ratio of 0.18 ( ART ) and 0.29 ( CT ) . When the cost of a hygienist to provide ART was inserted in the analysis , the result ing ratio was 0.14 . CONCLUSIONS Atraumatic restorative treatment was found to be a more cost-effective alternative to treat older adults after 1 year , compared to conventional restorations , especially in out of surgery facilities and using alternative workforce such as hygienists . Atraumatic restorative treatment can be a useful tool to provide dental care for frail and fearful individuals who might not access dental treatment routinely
CONCLUSION ART restorations have similar survival rate compared to conventional treatment and can be considered an option to restore occlusoproximal cavities in primary molars
BACKGROUND A previous systematic review showed that atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) can be an option to restore the occlusoproximal cavities in primary teeth ; however , few studies fulfilled the criteria of inclusion to generate a high level of evidence .
AIM To up date the existing systematic review and address questions regarding survival rate of ART restorations compared to the conventional approach in occlusoproximal cavities in primary molars .