IADR 95th

19/75

-19-EQUIA0614 Clinical Evaluation of Class II ART and Composite Restorations: 12-monthsPoster Presentation11:00 AM–12:15 PM Mar 23, 2017CC, First FloorAuthors:Authors:Rafael Menezes-Silva (Presenter)Bauru Dental SchoolHeitorHonório, University of São PauloDhelfesonDouglas de Oliveira, Federal University of Minas GeraisRoosevelt Bastos, University of São PauloSofia Velasco, Bauru School of DentistryMaria Atta, Universityersidadede São PauloMaria Fidelade Lima Navarro, University of Sao PauloMaria Fidelade Lima Navarro, University of Sao PauloAbstract: Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of Class II AtraumaticRestorative Treatment (ART) restorations with proximal retention grooves in permanent dentition with composite resin restorations.Methods: One hundred and thirty five participants, 8-28 years old, in good general health and 1 to 4 Class II cavities in permanent teeth without pulp involvement and tooth pain were included to 4 Class II cavities in permanent teeth without pulp involvement and tooth pain were included in this parallel randomized clinical trial. Seventy-seven restorations of High Viscosity Glass IonomerCement (Equia-GC) of ART and seventy-seven conventional restorations of composite resin (Z350–3M) were made. The restorations were evaluated at 12-months using the evaluation criteria of ART and of the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) modified. The variables were evaluated by descriptive statistics and chi-square test (p<0.05).Results: 71 ART restorations and 74 composite resins were evaluated. No restoration presented caries in any one of the faces. The success rates were 95.7% (ART and USPHS criteria) for ART and 98.6% (ART and USPHS criteria) for the composite resin (p=0.291). Three ART restorations and 98.6% (ART and USPHS criteria) for the composite resin (p=0.291). Three ART restorations (4.2%) and one (1.4%) composite resin restoration failed. 16.9% of ART restorations and 1.4% of composite resin presented marginal defect and gradual wear <0.5 mm (p=0.010). 50.7% of ART restorations and 48.6% of composite resin presented discrete discrepancy between the color of the material and tooth (p=0.522). 4.2% of ART restorations and 5.4% of composite resin presented limited discoloration in the most superficial portion of the interface (p=0.549). 9.9% of ART restorations and 6.8% of composite resin presented visual evidence of gap or discontinuity without dentin exposure (p=0.575). 2.8% of ART restorations and 1.4% of composite resin presented fracture or loss of restoration (p=0.575).composite resin presented fracture or loss of restoration (p=0.575).Conclusions: There is no difference in the success rate of Class II ART restorations with high-viscosity glass ionomerin permanent teeth, compared with Class II composite resin after 12-months.Student PresenterThis abstract is based on research that was funded entirely or partially by an outside source:FAPESP #2014/01626-3, SSWhite, GC CorporationDisclosure Statement:Disclosure Statement:The submitter must disclose the names of the organizations with which any author have a relationship, the nature of the relationship, and the clinical or research area involved. The following is submitted: NONEI have read the IADR policy on licensing.Signed by Rafael Menezes-SilvaReprinted with permission from the Journal of Dental Research, J Dent Res 96 (Spec Iss A):-19-abstract number 0614, https://iadr2017.zerista.com/event/member/330368, 2017