Yu, C.Gao, X.Deng, D.Yip, K.Smales, R.2007-02-242007-02-242004International Dental Journal, 2004; 54(1):42-460020-6539http://hdl.handle.net/2440/3945Objective: To compare the survival of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations placed in a dental clinic setting using both the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach with hand instruments, and conventional cavity preparation with rotary instruments. Method and Materials: Two encapsulated high-strength conventional GICs (Fuji IX GP, Ketac-Molar Aplicap) were placed in 82 Class I and 53 Class II preparations and one encapsulated non-gamma 2 amalgam alloy (GK-amalgam) was placed in 32 Class I preparations, in the primary molars of 60 Chinese children with a mean age of 7.40 ± 1.24 (SD) years. Thus, 9 treatment groups were formed. Results: After two years, there were no significant survival differences found among 7 of the 9 treatment groups (p = 0.99). However, two groups comprising Fuji IX GP and Ketac-Molar Aplicap placed in Class II cavities prepared using the ART approach showed significantly lower restoration survivals (p < 0.001). Only 3 of the 72 initially sealed fissures adjacent to the restorations appeared to retain any GIC material. Conclusions: In a clinic setting, both the ART hand instrument and conventional rotary instrument methods were equally suitable for high Class I restoration survival, but not for Class II restoration survival where the conventional cavity preparation method was preferable.en© 2004 FDI/World Dental PressAtraumatic restorative treatmentglass ionomer cementprimary teethJournal article002004167810.1111/j.1875-595X.2004.tb00251.x0002278313000062-s2.0-134230278456127