Journal of Dental Research · 2006 · 81 citations · 12 references
DentistryPediatric DentistryRestorative DentistryAesthetic Restorative DentistryDental MaterialsPediatric Restorative DentistryAmalgam RestorationsAtraumatic Restorative TreatmentDental AmalgamArt Restorative TechniqueGlass Ionomer CompositesGlass Ionomer SurfacesGlass ViscosityNull HypothesisReplacement Of Amalgam RestorationsRestorationsSurvival Analysis Of Restorations
The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference in the survival percentages of all restorations placed through the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach, with high-viscosity glass ionomer, and those produced through the traditional approach, with amalgam (TA), in the permanent dentitions of children after 6.3 years. Using a parallel group design, we randomly assigned a total of 370 children, aged 6 to 9 years, to the ART group and 311 children, also aged 6 to 9 years, to the TA group. Eight dentists placed a total of 1117 single- and multiple-surface restorations. The cumulative survival percentages for ART glass-ionomer restorations were statistically significantly higher than those of amalgam restorations at all time intervals except the first (p < or = 0.044). After 6.3 years, the cumulative survival percentages of ART and amalgam restorations were 66.1% (SE = 3.1%) and 57.0% (SE = 3.3%), respectively. We concluded that the restorations produced with the ART approach, with high-viscosity glass ionomer, survived longer than those produced with the traditional approach, with amalgam, in the permanent teeth of young children.
12
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
J. Richard Landis, Gary G. Koch · Biometrics · 1977 · 78.9K citations · Full text
Prathip Phantumvanit, T Pilot, J.E. Frencken · Journal of Public Health Dentistry · 1996 · 180 citations
F. J. T. Burke, S W Cheung, I.A. Mjör et al. · PubMed · 1999 · 154 citations