Studies investigating restorations placed in the primary dentition showed no significant differences between the groups after 12 and 24 months .
In the permanent dentition , the longevity of ART restorations is equal to or greater than that of equivalent amalgam restorations for up to 6.3 years and is site-dependent .
No difference was observed in primary teeth .
The aim was to report on the longevity of  restorations placed using the atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) approach  compared with that of  equivalent placed amalgam restorations .
Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars: one-year results.
OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to compare the success rates of  glass-ionomer cement restorations placed with the atraumatic restorative treatment approach and conventional cavity preparation methods . METHOD AND MATERIAL S Two encapsulated , high-strength , esthetic conventional glass-ionomer cements were placed in 82 Class I and 53 Class II atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations  , and an encapsulated amalgam alloy was placed in 32 Class I conventional preparations , in vital primary molars of 60 Chinese children aged 7 to 9 years . RESULTS The atraumatic restorative treatment preparations , made with h and instruments only , took approximately 50 % longer to complete than did the preparations completed with conventional rotary instrumentation . After 1 year , there were no amalgam failures . For the glass-ionomer cement restorations , when the atraumatic restorative treatment method was used , significantly better survival rates were found for Class I ( 92.9 % ) than for Class II ( 64.7 % ) cavity preparations . There was also a strong trend for relatively better survival rates for the conventional cavity preparation method ( 86.7 % ) than for the atraumatic restorative treatment ( 64.7 % ) method for Class II cavity preparations . However , both the atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional methods appeared equally effective for Class I preparations . CONCLUSION In a clinic setting , the use of atraumatic restorative treatment h and instruments for cavity preparation is more time consuming , and the method may also provide less mechanical retention and /or bulk of glass-ionomer cement for some Class II preparations in primary molars than does the use of conventional rotary instruments
Studies investigating restorations placed in the primary dentition showed no significant differences between the groups after 12 and 24 months .
In the permanent dentition , the longevity of ART restorations is equal to or greater than that of equivalent amalgam restorations for up to 6.3 years and is site-dependent .
No difference was observed in primary teeth .
The aim was to report on the longevity of  restorations placed using the atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) approach  compared with that of  equivalent placed amalgam restorations .