Purpose: To compare the 2-year cumulative survival rates of class II restorations made according to Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) with axial grooves and the high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) Equia Fil (GC) and the conventional method using the resin composite Filtek Z250 (3M Oral Care).
Materials and Methods: A parallel-group study design and a stratified randomization process (DMFS count and cavity size) were applied. Restorations were evaluated according to the ART restoration a nd USPHS criteria. Data were statistically analyzed using the proportional hazard rate regression model with frailty correction.
Results: 272 class II restorations were placed in 131 people (mean age 26.2 years) by two dentists. The dropout rate of restorations was 2.6%. According to ART restoration and USPHS criteria, the 2-year cumulative survival rates of class II ART/HVGIC restorations were 96.2% and 97.0%, respectively, and 97.8% and 98.5%, respectively, for the conventional class II resin-composite restorations. No differences were observed in the cumulative survival rates between the two treatment groups at 2 years (ART criteria: p=0.26; USPHS criteria p=0.23).
Conclusion: HVGIC Equia Fil used in the ART method with axial grooves and Filtek Z250 in the conventional method provided high survival rates for restoring class II cavities over 2 years.
Keywords: atraumatic restorative treatment, glass-ionomer cement, resin composite, class II, cavity size, restorations, axial grooves
