Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

One-year follow-up of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment(ART) for dental caries in children undergoing oncohematological treatment: a pragmatic trial

  • Cíntia Ferreira Gonçalves1, 4Email author,
  • Mariana Vargas Lindemaier e Silva2,
  • Luciane Rezende Costa3 and
  • Orlando Ayrton de Toledo1
BMC Oral Health201515:127

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-015-0110-y

Received: 24 February 2015

Accepted: 8 October 2015

Published: 16 October 2015

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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 %.

Results

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).

Conclusions

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.

Trial registration

Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (REBEC) RBR-2c3c52. Registered 5 June 2014. http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-2c3c52/

Keywords

Dental care for children Leukemia Lymphoma Antineoplastic drugs combination Dental caries Dental atraumatic restorative treatment

Background

The oral condition of children and adolescents undergoing oncohematological treatment requires frequent monitoring during the course of the antineoplastic therapy [1, 2]. These patients usually present highly compromised immunity, including the deterioration of the oral health status, gingival status and increased experience of dental caries [35]. Advanced dental caries in these children may represent significant morbidity and a source of general infection withpotential risk of mortality [6]. Moreover, dental caries is one of the most observed late effects of oncohematological treatment in survivors of childhood cancer [7, 8]. Therefore, it is important for children’s overall health that a specialized dentist manages their oral health condition from the pre-cancer therapy phase on ward to avoid the negative impacts of possible oral infections [9].

Another important consideration is that the salivary flow rate, salivary pH and total salivary antioxidant levels are lower in leukemic children compared with controls [3]. Thus, to achieve successful systemic treatment, it is necessary to seal open carious cavities and active white spots because oncohematological treatment contributes to the compromise of salivary defense mechanisms, increasing the possibility of local infections [10]. Moreover, salivary sialic acid levels have potent activity in the dental caries process, and patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) present salivary sialic acid levels higher than those of controls [4]. Another important factor is the presence of excess nitric oxide in the saliva, which may be associated with higher rates of mucosal lesions and periodontal disease in these children [11].

Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) could benefit children before the initiation of cancer treatmentby allowing a more conservative approach to dental caries management compared with conventional restorative dental treatment. The ART was first introduced in underserved populations, where the access and availability of dental equipment for conventional techniques are limited. This technique was based on scientific findings about partial caries removal with minimally invasive dentistry: the removal of demineralized dentin using hand tools and without the need for local anesthesia; disinfection of the cavity; and tooth restoration. In the ART approach, the repair of cavities and sealing of pits and fissures are performed by digital pressure with high-viscosity glass ionomer and the protection afforded by this material [12]. Currently, ART is defined as a minimally invasive approach to prevent dental caries and stop its future progression [12]. Thus, it has become possible to apply more conservative dentistry, preserving more dental tissues than in the past [13].

The number of publications reporting on the survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) has increased considerably. Nonetheless, we found only one study involving ART in people with special needs (most of them with cerebral palsy and autism), which compared the survival of ART restorations with composite resin restorations in, and as a result, ART restorations had better survival rates [14]. Current research shows that the longevity of ART is similar to conventional techniques in patients without special needs [13]. To the best of our knowledge, no study has compared ART with conventional dental restorations in children undergoing oncohematological treatment. Moreover, the ART has great benefits as an effective restorative technique, since it preserves more dental tissue than conventional dental treatment. In addition, it would avoid the use of rotary equipment and dental anesthesia, which are known to contribute to anxiety during dental treatment [15]; and it is important remember that these patients constantly undergo hospital manipulations for chemotherapy, which are potentially related to increased anxiety and fear [16]. Then, the ART could be recommended for people who go through stressful procedures in hospitals because it would cause less pain and anxiety [15].

Considering that children receiving oncohematological treatment present salivary changes that would make them more prone to caries and consequently unsuccessful restorations [17], our hypothesis was: these children would benefit from the ART for a period of time but would have more ART failure in the long-term. The aim of this study was to evaluate the longevity of restorations and sealants using the ART technique in children undergoing oncohematological treatment compared with healthy children.

Methods

Study design, setting and ethical aspects

This pragmatic prospective controlled clinical trial was conducted in the city of Palmas, capital of the State of Tocantins, North of Brazil. Tocantins is a state of 1,496,880 people, with one public hospital that provides oncohematological treatment for the underserved population. Children included in the experimental group came from the Palmas General Public Hospital (HGPP).

Ethical approval was obtained from the Federal University of Tocantins Research Ethical Committee (protocol #011/2012) and register number in REBEC, RBR-2c3c52. Informed consent was granted by patients’ parents after they were informed about the study’s aim, procedures, risks and benefits.

Participants and intervention

For the experimental group, all children aged between 2 and 13 years old who were undergoing oncohematological treatment at the HGPP during 2012 were assessed for eligibility. Children were included if they had presence of biofilm, active white spot and/or active cavities, despite the stage of the oncohematological treatment – initiation or remission. Those patients whose systemic involvement was too advanced to allow dental manipulation, such as those who were admitted to the intensive care unit, were excluded from the study. Immunosuppression alone was not an exclusion criterion.

The control group was selected among healthy children from the same age range who attended the pediatric dental clinic at the Brazilian Dental Association – Tocantins section (ABO-TO). The control group children were also at risk/activity of dental caries. None of the patients had any type of special need or were undergoing any type of oncohematological treatment.

Children from both groups participated in a basic oral health program, including dietary counseling and oral hygiene instruction, and the patients who required dental procedures other than those planned in the present study, such as the restoration of proximal cavities and extractions, were referred to the department of dental oncology in the HGPP or the ABO-TO clinic.

The participants were examined and treated by one dentist certified in pediatric dentistry and in dentistry for patients with special care needs (around 750 hundred hours each program). This dentist received didactic and practical training in ART performance during the specialization programs. The ART procedures were done and evaluated by the same operator.

In the first dental consultation, the dentist recorded the participants’ characteristics and the presence of dental caries, assessed as white spots, decayed, missing, and filled teeth (dmft for primary teeth or DMFT for permanent ones), according to the criteria of the WHO Oral Health Surveys Basic Methods [18]. The patients were seen on a stretcher in the outpatient oncology hospital room, simulating the conditions recommended by the original ART technique [12]. The teeth expected to exfoliate intwelve months did not receive ART.

After the child was positioned on the stretcher, the dentist performed the ART with a flashlight under cotton roll isolation, using hand instruments only (ART Kit, Henry Schein, Chicago, IL, USA) and a mouth prop. Children seen in the dental clinic were positioned in the dental chair. The sealant and restorative material was the high-viscosity glass ionomer Ketac Molar Easymix (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA), which was used according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Class I restorations and sealants were performed on the occlusal surfaces of molars and the palatal surface of some incisors, and Class V restorations were performed on the buccal surface of molars. In all cavities, softened infected carious tissue was removed from dentinal lesions in primary and permanent teeth based on tactile and optical criteria using hand instruments, according to the ART protocol [12]. In all procedures, the enamel or dentin surface was conditioned with the liquid component. The glass ionomer cement was hand-mixed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The cavity and adjacent fissures were filled and held under finger pressure for 60 s. Excessive cement was removed with hand instruments. A layer of Vaseline was placed over the restoration or sealant to maintain the water balance in the glass ionomer cement. Then, the occlusion was checked with a carbon paper (Accu Film II, Parkel, Farmingdale, NY, USA).

ART quality assessment

The quality of the ART sealants and restorations was carried out by the same examiner who performed the procedures, in the follow-up sessions scheduled for 1, 3, 6 and 12 months post-treatment using established ART restoration criteria by Roeleveld et al., [19] (Table 1), adapted to include dental sealants. Codes 00 and 10 were considered success, and the other codes, failure; the code 10 is related to a little failure that does not require repair, so it was categorized as success. This examiner reassessed the sealants and restorations in 10 % of the sample in an interval of 2 weeks, with a weighted Kappa coefficient of 0.707 for intra-examiner consistency.
Table 1

Criteria for follow-up evaluation of ART restorations and sealants (according to Roeleveld et al., [19])

Code

Evaluation characteristics

00

Restoration present, correct

10

Restoration present, slight marginal defect/wear of surface (<0.5 mm). No repair needed.

11

Restoration present, gross marginal defect/wear of surface (>0.5 mm). Repair needed.

12

Restoration present, underfilled (>0.5 mm). Repair needed.

13

Restoration present, overfilled (>0.5 mm). Repair needed.

20

Secondary caries, discoloration in depth, surface hard and intact, caries within dentin. Repair needed.

21

Secondary caries, surface defect, caries within dentin. Repair needed.

30

Restoration not present, bulk fracture, moving or partial lost. Repair needed.

40

Inflammation of the pulp; signs of dentogenic infection (abscesses, fistulae, pain complaints). Restoration might still be in situ. Extraction needed.

50

Tooth not present because of extraction

60

Tooth not present because of shedding

70

Tooth not present because of extraction or shedding

90

Patient not present

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed by one researcher using IBM SPSS 19.0 and checked by another member of the research team.

For initial analysis, data were analyzed according to the experimental group by calculating frequencies and measures of dispersion as appropriate. Then, Fisher’s Exact Test, Pearson’s Chi-Square and the Mann–Whitney U Test were used to compare the experimental and control groups regarding children’s demographics, caries experience and ART. Significance was set at P <0.05.

To analyze the failure of ART restorations and sealants in each return visit (follow-up session as described earlier) as a function of predictor variables, survival analysis was chosen instead of regression or ANOVA because it allowed for censored values such as cases lost to follow-up. The response variable was the time elapsed between the baseline consultation, when the restorations and sealants were applied, and the end of follow-up or the censorship of cases. The censored cases were those that had abandoned the follow-up after at least one ART assessment, or those who had lost all procedures. If follow-up data were completely missing for any subject (missing data), that case was left out.

Cox’s proportional hazard model evaluated explanatory variables for the restorations’ and sealants’ survival, including sex, age, and type of behavioral intervention. This model is a multiple regression analysis applied to survival analysis and is indicated when an estimate of the role of independent variables that act multiplicatively on risk is desired. The assumption was that individuals undergoing chemotherapy have different survival rates for restorations and sealants than those individuals who are not undergoing this type of treatment.

Results

Characteristics of participants

A total of 38 children were included in the study, 24 in the experimental group and 14 in the control group (Fig. 1). There were no differences between the experimental (oncohematological) and control (healthy) groups regarding children’s demographics, caries experience and number of ART procedures performed (Table 2). Among the total of 24 patients undergoing oncohematological treatment, the greatest incidence of underlying pathology was acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), including its subdivisions, such as high risk, low risk, and intermediate risk. In addition, some patients in the experimental group were in treatment for some types of lymphoma. Among the protocol’s recommended treatments, the most frequent was the European Berlin-Frankfurt-Munster (BFM-90) group protocol, adopted by the Brazilian National Cancer Institute, which recommends short, intensive multidrug leukemia therapy. Half of the sample was subjected to radiotherapy treatment. None of the patients in the experimental group had undergone bone marrow transplantation by the time of the study.
Fig. 1

Flow diagram of participants in this quasi-experimental clinical trial

Table 2

Participants’ characteristics

Variables

Experimental (n = 24)

Control (n = 14)

P

Children demographics

 Sex, n (%)

  Female

10 (41.7 %)

8 (57.1 %)

0.503a

  Male

14 (58.3 %)

6 (42.9 %)

 

 Age, median (range)

7.0 (2.0–13.0)

7.5 (4.0–13.0)

0.893b

Caries experience

 DMFT, median (range)

1.0 (0–10.0)

2.0 (0–6.0)

0.622b

 White spots, median (range)

2.0 (0–8.0)

3.5 (0–4.0)

0.235b

ART (single surface restorations and sealants)

 Number of procedures/child, median (range)

4.0 (2.0–14.0)

4.0 (2.0–8.0)

0.612b

aFisher’s Exact Test; bMann-Whitney U Test

A total of 101 ART procedures were performed in the experimental group, and 52 were performed in the control group. Groups did not differ regarding the baseline characteristics of the ART (teeth ant type of procedure), but there were differences in a few follow-up periods (Table 3). All but one child had positive or definitely positive behavior [20]. Most ART procedures were performed in permanent teeth and were of the sealant type. In the follow-up period, teeth that needed ART repair were excluded from the subsequent analyses because they required new restorations. At the third and twelfth months of follow-up, groups did not differ in codes 00 and 20, but there were more Code 10 ART in the control group and Code 30 ART in the experimental group (P <0.05).
Table 3

Characteristics of the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) procedure

Variables

Experimental (n = 101 ART)

Control (n = 52 ART)

P

Teeth

  

1.000*

 Primary molars

27 (26.7 %)

14 (26.9 %)

 

 Permanent

74 (73.3 %)

38 (73.1 %)

 

  Lateral incisors

4 (4.0 %)

0

 

  Premolars

7 (7.0 %)

0

 

  Molars

63 (62.3 %)

38 (73.1 %)

 

Type of ART

  

0.297

 Sealant

88 (87.1 %)

42 (80.8 %)

 

 Restoration

13 (12.9 %)

10 (19.2 %)

 

Tooth surface

  

0.114

 Occlusal

93 (92.1 %)

52 (100 %)

 

 Palatal

4 (4.0 %)

0

 

 Vestibular

4 (4.0 %)

0

 

One-month follow-up

 Evaluation

  

0.233

  Code 00

89 (88.1 %)

47 (90.4 %)

 

  Code 10

7 (6.9 %)

5 (9.6 %)

 

  Code 30

5 (5.0 %)

0

 

 Type of failure

  

  Partial loss, distal

4 (4.0 %)

1 (1.9 %)

 

  Partial loss, lingual

1 (1.0 %)

0

 

  Partial loss, mesial

2 (2.0 %)

4 (7.7 %)

 

  Total loss

5 (5.0 %)

0

 

Three-month follow-up

 Evaluation

  

0.009

  Code 00

80 (79.2 %)

41 (78.8 %)

 

  Code 10

2 (2.0 %)

7 (13.5 %)

 

  Code 20

1 (1.0 %)

1 (1.9 %)

 

  Code 30

13 (12.9 %)

3 (5.8 %)

 

 Type of failure

  Partial loss, distal

2 (2.0 %)

3 (5.8 %)

 

  Partial loss, distal with dentin exposure

1 (1.0 %)

0

 

  Partial loss, mesial

0

3 (5.8 %)

 

  Total loss

13 (12.9 %)

3 (5.8 %)

 

  Tooth decay, distal

0

1 (1.9 %)

 

Six-month follow-up

 Evaluation

  

0.050

  Code 00

67 (66.3 %)

35 (67.3 %)

 

  Code 10

6 (5.9 %)

7 (13.5 %)

 

  Code 20

0

2 (3.8 %)

 

  Code 30

5 (5.0 %)

4 (7.7 %)

 

  Child died

4 (4.0 %)

0

 

 Type of failure

  Partial loss, distal

3 (3.0 %)

3 (5.8 %)

 

  Partial loss, mesial

2 (2.0 %)

4 (7.7 %)

 

  Total loss

4 (4.0 %)

4 (7.7 %)

 

  Tooth decay, distal

0

1 (1.9 %)

 

  Tooth decay, mesial

0

1 (1.9 %)

 

Twelve months follow-up

 Evaluation

  

0.001

  Code 00

42 (41.6 %)

27 (51.9 %)

 

  Code 10

7 (6.9 %)

11 (21.2 %)

 

  Code 11

1 (1.0 %)

0

 

  Code 30

14 (13.9 %)

4 (7.7 %)

 

  Child died

12 (11.9 %)

0

 

 Type of failure

  Partial loss, distal

3 (3.0 %)

7 (13.3 %)

 

  Partial loss, distal with repair need

1 (1.0 %)

0

 

  Partial loss, mesial

3 (3.0 %)

4 (7.7 %)

 

  Total loss

13 (12.9 %)

4 (7.7 %)

 
ART survival did not significantly differ among groups (putting together single surface restorations and sealants), but was different when comparing primary with permanent teeth, regardless of oncohematological treatment (Fig. 2 and Table 4). The survival life tables showed that at the twelfth month, 60.4 % of ART in the experimental group did not need repair compared with 72.6 % in the control group (P = 0.12), whilst 48.1 % of primary and 67.1 % of permanent teeth restored did not need repair (P = 0.01). ART in primary teeth had a 2.1× greater chance of failure or need for repair in a period of 12 months of follow-up, compared with permanent teeth (Table 4).
Fig. 2

Life tables for the survival of ART comparing intervention groups (a) and dentition (b)

Table 4

Final result of Cox regression for occurrence of ART failure needing repair

Variables

Odds ratio (OR)

95 % confidence interval for OR

P

Group

   

Experimental

1.6

0.8–2.9

0.155

Control

1

  

Type of tooth

   

Primary

2.1

1.2–3.7

0.008

Permanent

1

  

As the majority of ART procedures were sealants, we ran a separate survival analysis excluding the ART single surface restorations (n = 23). The results showed that, at the 12-month assessment, 57.9 % of the ART sealants in the experimental group had survived without needing a repair, whilst in the control group the success survival rate was 78.0 % (P = 0.03).

Power estimation for the survival analyses varied from small to moderate, with an alpha of 0.05: 0.22 (ART restorations and sealants curve; experimental versus control group), 0.69 (ART comparing primary versus permanent teeth) and 0.65 (ART sealants only, experimental versus control group).

Discussion

The main finding of this study was that survival rates of ART restorations and sealants placed in children undergoing oncohematological treatment were similar to those of healthy children, after 12 months, although the type of failure differed between groups. However, when ART sealants were analyzed separately, the experimental group had more failures. This partially confirms our hypothesis that ART in the experimental group would have a shorter survival. In addition, a secondary finding of this study was that ART longevity differed between primary and permanent teeth, confirming the literature’s findings as discussed in the next paragraphs.

The overall success rate of ART (codes 00 and 10), adding the experimental and the control group, varied from approximately 95–100 % in the first post-operative month and 48–73 % at the 12-month assessment. That is, there was a decreasein the success rate of almost 50 % in the experimental group over a 1-year period. Many studies have reported a relatively high longevity rate after 12 months of follow-up for single-surface ART restorations in primary teeth (94–99 %) [2125] and in permanent ones (94–100 %) [2632]. The differences in success rates among studies might be due to differences in the ART performance and evaluation criteria. Unfortunately, there are no reports in the literature on the success of other types of restorations in patients undergoing oncohematological treatment.

At the end of 12 months of follow-up, experimental and control groups did not differ regarding the need of repair according to the survival analysis (60.4 % versus 72.6 %, respectively), putting together ART restorations and sealants. However, this finding might be questioned if one considers that a difference of about 12 percentage points is clinically relevant. Maybe future studies with larger sample size are able to further test this difference. Interestingly, when the ART restoration cases were removed from the analysis, the interpretation of the results changed, because ART sealants survived longer in the control group. Given this fact, our team suggests future studies involving ART sealants and habits such as bruxism, for example.

The most observed failures were categorized as codes 11, 20 or 30 [19], which mean that most failures were related to mechanical issues with the restorations/sealants and not to secondary caries, which was observed in very few teeth. The experimental group had more failures in need of repair (code 30) and in the control group, most failure was related to slight repairs with no need for further repair (code 10).

Interestingly, we did not observe other codes of failure already reported in other studies, perhaps because there were relatively more pit and fissure sealants in our research.

Longer survival was expected in permanent teeth compared to primary teeth. A systematic review of the literature concluded that ART restorations and sealants in permanent teeth have fewer failures and less need for repair than restorations and sealants performed in primary teeth; i.e., restorations and sealants in permanent teeth present longer survival than those in deciduous teeth. This difference is likely due to increased adhesion between the glass ionomer cement and the enamel that occurs in permanent teeth, as they are more mineralized than the deciduous teeth [33]. This finding leads us to infer that young patients undergoing oncohematological treatment, i.e., those with primary molars should receive increased attention towards preventive procedures, as these teeth may be more prone to restoration failures than permanent teeth.

The ART restorations and sealants were performed and assessed by the same dentist. One of the advantages of the evaluation being conducted by only one surveyor was the accuracy of the technique. However, as the dentist was not blinded for the intervention group, there could be some bias in assessing the failures of restorations in the follow-up period.

Another important conclusion that can be extrapolated from our research is that although the ART technique presents longevity comparable to conventional restorative techniques, such as amalgam [3438], in the group of patients undergoing oncohematological treatment, there were more failures in need of repair. Therefore, we can infer that it is extremely important that patients undergoing this type of treatment are regularly assessed by a dentist, who must repair any form of failure immediately after it is identified.

Our study had some limitations, including the small, non-calculated sample size, besides some expected limitations inherent to pragmatic trials [338]: the non-randomized allocation of interventions, the observer not masked to the procedure, the different settings where groups were submitted to intervention. Thus, the present results should be confirmed in larger trials. However, this research allows us to affirm that the ART technique is viable in the population investigated, as literature [14, 15, 33, 34] states that it provides benefits such as minimally invasive procedures, psychological comfort to the patient, the sealing of open cavities, and increased availability of fluoride in the oral cavity, among others.

Furthermore, it is important to note that this study is original and novel. Future multicenter studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up period should confirm our results, as well as investigate the quality of life and patients’ perceptions regarding atraumatic dental treatment. This may contribute to the recommendation of dental protocols for this population.

Conclusions

Overall, this study shows that ART restorations and sealants in children undergoing oncohematological treatment are effective and feasible, but the occurrence of failures in need of repair indicates that the ART approach in this group of patients should be recommended as long as a systematic follow-up is planned and executed.

Abbreviations

ABO-TO: 

Brazilian Dental Association – Tocantins Section

ALL: 

Acute lymphocytic leukemia

ART: 

Atraumatic restorative treatment

BFM-90: 

European group protocol Berlin-Frankfurt-Munster

C: 

Control

CI: 

Confidence interval

dmft: 

Index of decayed, missing and filled primary teeth

DMFT: 

Index of decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth

E: 

Experimental

OR: 

Odds ratio

REBEC: 

Brazilian registry of clinical trials

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the oncology team of the Public General Palmas Hospital and the Brazilian Dental Association - Tocantins for allowing the research to be carried out with their patients and at their facilities. This study had no source of funding; author LRC receives a research scholarship from the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Brazil.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Health Sciences Graduate Program, University of Brasília
(2)
Dentistry Graduate Program, São Leopoldo MandicUniversity
(3)
Division of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculdade de Odontologia, Universidade Federal de Goiás
(4)

References

  1. Thomaz EB, Guerra RN, Libério SA, da Cruz MC, Pereira AL. Longitudinal assessment of immunological and oral clinical conditions in patients undergoing anticancer treatment for leukemia. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;77(7):1088–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Cubukçu CE, Güneş AM. Caries experience of leukemic children during intensive course of chemotherapy. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2008;32(2):155–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Hegde AM, Joshi S, Rai K, Shetty S. Evaluation of oral hygiene status, salivary characteristics and dental caries experience in acute lymphoblastic leukemic (ALL) children. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2011;35(3):319–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Joshi S, Hegde AM, Rai K, Shetty S. Evaluation of salivary sialic acid levels in acute lymphoblastic leukemic children and its correlation with dental caries experience. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2013;37(3):309–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Maciel JC, de Castro CG, Jr BAL, Di Leone LP, da Silveira HE. Oral health and dental anomalies in patients treated for leukemia in childhood and adolescence. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2009;53(3):361–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gawade PL, Hudson MM, Kaste SC, Neglia JP, Constine LS, Robison LL, et al. A systematic review of dental late effects in survivors of childhood cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2014;61(3):407–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Avşar A, Elli M, Darka O, Pinarli G. Long-term effects of chemotherapy on caries formation, dental development, and salivary factors in childhood cancer survivors. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007;104(6):781–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hong CH, daFonseca M. Considerations in the pediatric population with cancer. Dent Clin North Am. 2008;52(1):155–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Karolewska E, Konopka T, Pupek M, Chybicka A, Mendak M. Antibacterial potential of saliva in children with leukemia. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;105(6):739–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Frencken JE, Pilot T, Songpaisan Y, Phantumvanit P. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): rationale, technique, and development. J Public Health Dent. 1996;56(3):135–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Frencken JE, Leal SC, Navarro MF. Twenty-five-year atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach: a comprehensive overview. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16(5):1337–46.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Molina GF, Faulks D, Mazzola I, Mulder J, Frencken JE. One year survival of ART and conventional restorations in patients with disability. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14:49–57.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Costa LR, Cozac CD, Alves RT, Cortines AAO. Tratamiento restaurador atraumatico para niños hospitalizados. Rev Odontopediatr Latinoamer. 2011;1:160–9.Google Scholar
  16. Thrane S. Effectiveness of integrative modalities for pain and anxiety in children and adolescents with cancer: a systematic review. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2013;30(6):320–32.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Chaveli-López B. Oral toxicity produced by chemotherapy: a systematic review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2014;6(1):81–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. World Health Organization. Oral Health Surveys-basic methods. 3ath ed. Geneva: WHO; 1987.Google Scholar
  19. Roeleveld AC, van Amerongen WE, Mandari GJ. Influence of residual caries and cervical gaps on the survival rate of Class II glass ionomer restorations. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2006;7(2):85–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Yu C, Gao XJ, Deng DM, Yip HK, Smales RJ. Survival of glass ionomer restorations placed in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity preparations: 2-year results. Int Dent J. 2004;54(1):42–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Taifour D, Frencken JE, Beiruti N, van’t Hof MA, Truin GJ. Effectiveness of glass-ionomer (ART) and amalgam restorations in the deciduous dentition: results after 3 years. Caries Res. 2002;36(6):437–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Honkala E, Behbehani J, Ibricevic H, Kerosuo E, Al-Jame G. The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach to restoring primary teeth in a standard dental clinic. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2003;13(3):172–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Frencken JE, Taifour D, van’t Hof MA. Survival of ART and amalgam restorations in permanent teeth of children after 6.3 years. J Dent Res. 2006;85(7):622–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Mickenautsch S, Rudolph MJ, Ogunbodede EO, Frencken JE. The impact of the ART approach on the treatment profile in a mobile dental system (MDS) in South Africa. Int Dent J. 1999;49(3):132–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. Lo EC, Holmgren CJ, Hu D, van Palenstein HW. Six-year follow up of atraumatic restorative treatment restorations placed in Chinese school children. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2007;35(5):387–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Frencken JE, Makoni F, Sithole WD. ART restorations and glass ionomer sealants in Zimbabwe: survival after 3 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1998;26(6):372–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Amorim RG, Leal SC, Frencken JE. Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16(2):429–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Frencken JE. The state-of-the-art of ART restorations. Dent Update. 2014;41(3):218–20. 222–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Estupiñán-Day S, Tellez M, Kaur S, Milner T, Solari A. Managing dental caries with atraumatic restorative treatment in children: successful experience in three Latin American countries. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2013;33(4):237–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Zanata RL, Fagundes TC, Freitas MC, Lauris JR, Navarro MF. Ten-year survival of ART restorations in permanent posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig. 2011;15(2):265–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Treweek S, Zwarenstein M. Making trials matter: pragmatic and explanatory trials and the problem of applicability. Trials. 2009;10:37.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Gonçalves et al. 2015

Advertisement