This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Research article
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
Daniela Prócida Raggio
Department of Paediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0048-2068
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: 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.
Methods: Children (5-10 yo) who had a primary molar with an occluso-proximal carious lesion were allocated to the ART 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).
Results: 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 six months; and 5) teeth treated with the HT exfoliated earlier than those in the ART group (p=0.007).
Conclusions: 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%).
Keywords
Hall Technique, Atraumatic Restorative Treatment, Restoration, Primary Molars, Dental Caries, Management, Randomized Controlled Trial, non-AGPs
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Due to technical limitations, full-text HTML conversion of this manuscript could not be completed. However, the manuscript can be downloaded and accessed as a PDF.
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 11 May, 2020
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Dentistry
Learn more about our company.
This is a preprint. It has not completed peer review.
Research article
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
Daniela Prócida Raggio
Department of Paediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0048-2068
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 11 May, 2020
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Dentistry
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: 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.
Methods: Children (5-10 yo) who had a primary molar with an occluso-proximal carious lesion were allocated to the ART 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).
Results: 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 six months; and 5) teeth treated with the HT exfoliated earlier than those in the ART group (p=0.007).
Conclusions: 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%).
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Due to technical limitations, full-text HTML conversion of this manuscript could not be completed. However, the manuscript can be downloaded and accessed as a PDF.