The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
CFG and MVLS collected data, carried out the study and drafted the manuscript. LRC assessed data, performed the statistical analysis, helped to interpret the results and draft the manuscript. OAT conceived the study, and participated in its design and coordination. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the study.
The oral condition in children undergoing oncohematological treatment can have a negative impact on the course of disease. Little is known about survival of tooth restorations in these patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the longevity of restorations and sealants performed by Atraumatic Restoration Treatment (ART) in patients undergoing oncohematological treatment.
ART single surface restorations and sealants were performed in the experimental group (E), which comprised children (2–13 years old) undergoing oncohematological treatment, and in the control group (C), in which patients did not undergo such treatment. The same examiner evaluated the ART at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after preparation, using the same criteria for restorations and sealants. ART was successful if the sealant or restoration did not need a repair in the follow-up assessment. Descriptive, bivariate and Cox’s proportional hazard analyses were performed at a significance level of 5 %.
The two groups, one including 24 children (E) and the other 14 children (C), received 101 and 52 ART procedures, respectively. The success rates were 95.0 % (E) and 100 % (C) at 1 month (P = 0.233); 81.2 % (E) and 92.3 % (C) at 3 months (P = 0.009); 72.2 % (E) and 80.8 % (C) at 6 months (P = 0.050) and 48.5 % (E) and 73.1 % (C) at 12 months (P = 0.001). The final Cox’s regression model for occurrence of ART failure needing repair did not show differences between groups (E: OR = 1.6, 95 % CI 0.8–2.9); primary teeth had a shorter survival than permanent teeth (OR = 2.1, 95 % CI 1.2–3.7).
Oncohematological treatment did not interfere with the longevity of ART restorations and sealants, which suggests the potential use of this technique in children undergoing chemotherapy.
Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (REBEC) RBR-2c3c52. Registered 5 June 2014. http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-2c3c52/
Elad S, Raber-Durlacher JE, Brennan MT, Saunders DP, Mank AP, Zadik Y, et al. Basic oral care for hematology-oncology patients and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients: a position paper from the joint task force of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT). Support Care Cancer. 2015;23(1):223–36. CrossRefPubMed
Carvalho EC, Cárnio EC, Khouri VY, Guilherme C, dos Santos CB, Pace MA. Examination of the oral cavities of patients with cancer: clinical evaluation and indirect measurement of the nitric oxide level. Rev Esc Enferm. 2013;47(1):101–6. CrossRef
Costa LR, Cozac CD, Alves RT, Cortines AAO. Tratamiento restaurador atraumatico para niños hospitalizados. Rev Odontopediatr Latinoamer. 2011;1:160–9.
Chaveli-López B. Oral toxicity produced by chemotherapy: a systematic review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2014;6(1):81–90. CrossRef
World Health Organization. Oral Health Surveys-basic methods. 3ath ed. Geneva: WHO; 1987.
Frankl SN, Shiere FR, Fogels HR. Should the parent remain with the child in the dental operatory? J Dent Child. 1962;29(2):150–62.
Yip HK, Smales RJ, Yu C, Gao XJ, Deng DM. Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars: one-year results. Quintessence Int. 2002;33(1):17–21. PubMed
Louw AJ, Sarvan I, Chikte UM, Honkala E. One-year evaluation of atraumatic restorative treatment and minimum intervention techniques on primary teeth. SADJ. 2002;57(9):366–71. PubMed
Cefaly DF, Barata TJ, Bresciani E, Fagundes TC, Lauris JR, Navarro MF. Clinical evaluation of multiple-surface ART restorations: 12 month follow-up. J Dent Child. 2007;74(3):203–8.
Rahimtoola S, van Amerongen E. Comparison of two tooth-saving preparation techniques for one-surface cavities. ASDC J Dent Child. 2002;69(1):16–26. PubMed
Gao W, Peng D, Smales RJ, Yip KH. Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional restorative procedures in a hospital clinic: evaluation after 30 months. Quintessence Int. 2003;34(1):31–7. PubMed
Frencken JE. The state-of-the-art of ART restorations. Dent Update. 2014;41(3):218–20. 222–4. PubMed
Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Failure rate of high-viscosity GIC based ART compared with that of conventional amalgam restorations—evidence from an update of a systematic review. SADJ. 2012;67(7):329–31. PubMed
- One-year follow-up of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment(ART) for dental caries in children undergoing oncohematological treatment: a pragmatic trial
Cíntia Ferreira Gonçalves
Mariana Vargas Lindemaier e Silva
Luciane Rezende Costa
Orlando Ayrton de Toledo
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin
Mail Icon II