...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Oral Health >Atraumatic restorative treatment compared to the Hall Technique for occluso-proximal carious lesions in primary molars; 36-month follow-up of a randomised control trial in a school setting
【24h】

Atraumatic restorative treatment compared to the Hall Technique for occluso-proximal carious lesions in primary molars; 36-month follow-up of a randomised control trial in a school setting

机译:针对原代臼齿的occluso-近端龋病的霍尔技术相比,无创伤的恢复治疗;学校环境中随机控制试验的36个月随访

获取原文
           

摘要

Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) and the Hall Technique (HT) are both minimally invasive, non-aerosol generating procedures (non-AGPs). They seem to have never been directly compared, nor has the HT been studied in a non-clinical setting. This study compared the HT and ART restorations placed in a school setting after 36?months. Children (5–10?yo) who had a primary molar with a dentinal occluso-proximal, cavitated carious lesion were allocated to the ART (selective removal)?or HT arms. Primary outcome: restoration survival over 36-months (using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, log rank test, and Cox regression). Secondary outcomes: (1) occlusal vertical dimension (OVD) (1, 2, 3, 4?weeks) and (2) child self-reported discomfort; (3) treatment acceptability (immediately following interventions); (4) Child Oral Health Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL), before treatment and after 6?months and (5) a post hoc analysis of time to tooth exfoliation (1, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36?months). One-hundred and thirty-one children (ART?=?65; HT?=?66) were included (mean age?=?8.1?±?1.2). At 36?months, 112 (85.5%) children were followed-up. Primary outcome: restoration survival rates ART?=?32.7% (SE?=?0.08; 95% CI 0.17–0.47); HT?=?93.4% (0.05; 0.72–0.99), p??0.001; Secondary outcomes: (1) OVD returned to pre-treatment state within 4?weeks; (2) treatment discomfort was higher for the HT (p?=?0.018); (3) over 70% of children and parents showed a high acceptability for treatments, with crown aesthetics being a concern for around 23% of parents; (4) Child OHRQoL improved after 6?months; and (5) teeth treated with the HT exfoliated earlier than those in the ART group (p?=?0.007). Both ART and the HT were acceptable to child participants and their parents and all parents thought both restorations protected their child’s tooth. However, the crown appearance concerned almost a quarter of parents in the HT arm. Children experienced less discomfort in the ART group. Although both treatments can be performed in a non-clinical setting and have the advantage of being non-aerosol generating procedures (non-AGPs), the HT had almost three times higher survival rates (93.4%) for restoring primary molar occluso-proximal cavities compared to ART (32.7%). This trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02569047), 5th October 2015. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT02569047?cond=Hall+Technique+Atraumatic+Rest orative+Treatment&draw=2&rank=2.
机译:ATRAUMATIC RESTORATIVE治疗(ART)和霍尔技术(HT)都是微创的,非气溶胶产生程序(非AGPS)。它们似乎从未比较了,并且HT已经在非临床环境中进行过。本研究比较了36个月后的学校设置中的HT和艺术修复物。患有牙本质封闭封闭的初级臼齿的儿童(5-10?yo)分配给本领域(选择性去除)?或HT武器。主要结果:超过36个月的恢复存活(使用Kaplan-Meier生存分析,日志等级测试和Cox回归)。二次结果:(1)咬合垂直尺寸(OVD)(1,2,3,4?周)和(2)儿童自我报告的不适; (3)治疗可接受性(后续干预措施); (4)儿童口腔健康相关的生活质量(OHRQOL),治疗前和6个月和(5)后HOC分析时间牙齿去角质(1,6,12,18,24,30,36,36? )。包括一百三十一岁的孩子(艺术?=?65; HT?=?66)(平均年龄?=?8.1?±±1.2)。在36岁?几个月,112名(85.5%)的儿童随访。主要结果:恢复存活率艺术?=?32.7%(SE?= 0.08; 95%CI 0.17-0.47); ht?=?93.4%(0.05; 0.72-0.99),p?<?0.001;二次结果:(1)OVD在4个周内返回预处理状态; (2)治疗不适用于HT(p?= 0.018); (3)超过70%的儿童和父母对治疗具有很高的可接受性,皇冠美学占父母约23%的担忧; (4)儿童OHRQOL在6个月后改善; (5)用HT剥离的牙齿早于本领域本领域的HT(P?= 0.007)。艺术和HT都可以接受儿童参与者和他们的父母,所有父母认为这两个修复都保护了他们的孩子的牙齿。然而,皇冠外观有关几乎四分之一的父母。孩子们在艺术团体中经历了较少的不适。尽管两种治疗可以在非临床环境中进行,并且具有非气溶胶产生程序(非AGPS)的优点,但HT具有较高的存活率(93.4%)用于恢复初级摩尔堵塞近侧腔的近三倍与艺术相比(32.7%)。该试验在ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT02569047)中注册,2015年10月5日。Https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/nct02569047?cond=hall+technique Xatraumatic kest +治疗+ 2&等级= 2。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号