## 3 Results  
A total of 90 children (average age of 6.8 \(\pm\) 1.4 years, and male to female ratio 1.2:1), with 180 restorations (116 mandibular molars and 64 maxillary molars), were prepared. The consort flow diagram is explained in Figure 1. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Code** & **Criteria** \\ \hline
0 & The restoration is present and in good condition \\
1 & The restoration is present, with a slight marginal defect; no repair is needed \\
2 & The restoration is present, with slight wear; no repair is needed \\
3 & The restoration is present, with marginal defect >0.5 mm; repair is needed \\
4 & The restoration is present, with wear >0.5 mm; repair is needed \\
5 & The restoration is not present, it is partly or completely lost \\
6 & The restoration is not present, it is replaced by another restoration \\
7 & The tooth is missing, exfoliated, or extracted \\
8 & Restoration not assessed; child not present \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Code and criteria used for the assessment of ART restorations. The distribution of cavity size in terms of depth, mesiodistal, and buccolingual dimensions is summarized in Table 3.  
The dropout rate for 12 months and the 24-month assessment was 4.4% and 10%, respectively. The overall survival of all ART restorations was 83.3% at 24 months for the total sample. The survival of conventional GIC, at 24 months assessment was 83.9%, and for CHX-modified GIC it was 82.7% (\(p>0.05\)) (Table 4). Figure 1: Consort statement flow diagram. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline  & & **Cavity Size Categories** & \\
**Cavity Sizes** & **Depth \(n\) (Mean)** & **Mesio-Distal** & **Bucco-Lingual \(n\)** \\  & & \(n\) **(Mean)** & **(Mean)** \\ \hline \(<\)2 mm & 68 (1.6 mm) & 38 (1.5 mm) & 51 (1.4 mm) \\
2.1–3 mm & 97 (2.3 mm) & 65 (2.6 mm) & 68 (2.4 mm) \\
3.1–4 mm & 15 (3.2 mm) & 44 (3.3 mm) & 37 (3.3 mm) \\ \(>\)4 mm & 0 & 33 (4.2 mm) & 24 (4.2 mm) \\ Total & 180 & 180 & 180 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Distribution of cavities according to the size at baseline. There was a statistically significant difference in survival of ART restorations between the 6-month assessment and 24-month assessment (_p_ = 0.03) for both conventional GIC and CHX Modified GIC. The most successful restorations were assessed to be in good condition (code-0) for both the groups, while the reason for failure was recorded maximum under gross marginal defect (code-3) (Table 4). Survival of ART restorations depending on cavity size showed the highest success for restorations with 2.1-3 mm cavity depth, mesiodistal, and buccolingual width (Table 5, Figure 2). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**24 Months**} \\
**Restoration Status** & **61** & **\%** & **CHX-GIC** & **Kruskal–Wallis** \\ \hline
1. & Success, in good condition & 51 & 63.0 & 46 & 56.8 & 0.07 \\
2. & Success, slight marginal defect & 8 & 9.9 & 13 & 16.0 & 0.09 \\
3. & Success, slight wear & 9 & 11.1 & 8 & 9.9 & 0.09 \\
4. & Failed, gross marginal defect & 5 & 6.2 & 6 & 7.4 & 0.11 \\
5. & Failed, gross wear & 4 & 4.9 & 4 & 4.9 & 0.12 \\
6. & Failed, a restoration partly or completely & 3 & 3.7 & 3 & 3.7 & 0.11 \\
7. & Failed, restoration replaced by another filling & 1 & 1.2 & 1 & 1.2 & NA \\ Success & 68 & 83.9 & 67 & 82.7 & 0.12 \\ Failure & 13 & 16.0 & 14 & 17.3 & 0.11 \\ Overall success & & & 135 (83.3) & & \\ Drop-out & & & 9 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Survival status of conventional GIC and CHX modified GIC ART restoration after 24 months.