Selection of restorative materials for the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach: a review

Abstract

<jats:title>ABSTRACT</jats:title><jats:p>The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique or approach for the restoration of primary and permanent teeth has been widely adopted in, but not limited to, developing countries. However, the requirement for the placement of the restorative materials under often less‐than‐ideal conditions imposes significant restrictions on their selection; and there have been very few randomized clinical trials or reports comparing different types of restorative materials and treatments. Although conventional glass‐ionomer cements (GICs) have relatively poor mechanical and adhesive strengths, their satisfactory biological features, ease of use, and low costs are distinct advantages. Most of the published reports of the clinical performance of the newer, high‐strength esthetic conventional GICs specifically marketed for the ART approach have been from short‐term studies. Satisfactory clinical performance has been demonstrated for single‐surface posterior restorations only, over three years. Findings indicate that further improvements in restorative materials are still required for their use with the ART approach, together with further clinical investigations of the remineralization of shallow open caries lesions, as an alternative to placing definitive restorations.</jats:p>