Atraumatic Restorative Treatment vs. Hall Technique for Occlusoproximal Lesions in Primary Dentition-An In vivo Study

• Main Authors: Siragam Pavani Lakshmi, Suzan Sahana, Aron Arun Kumar Vasa, Ghanashyam Prasad Madu, Sushma Bezawada, Mamidi Deepika
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited 2018-02-01
• Series: Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
• Subjects: carious primary molars; interproximal caries; patient acceptance
• Online Access: https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/11186/29576_281117_29576_F(P)_PF1_(PB_BT_RA_SL)_PFA(AnG)_PB(EK_SL).pdf
• ISSN: 2249-782X; 0973-709X

Introduction: The economically deprived community often face significant barriers in accessing dental care and children too have unmet dental needs. The occlusoproximal surfaces of primary molars are more prone to acquisition of biofilm and are at greater risk of developing caries. Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) and the Hall Technique (HT) can be considered the most clinically acceptable and cost effective strategies for managing occlusoproximal lesions in primary molars that can be provided in a community setting. Aim: To evaluate and compare the general acceptability of ART and HT for restoring occlusoproximal caries in primary molars. Materials and Methods: The study population comprised of 30 children in the age group of five to eight years presenting with at least one occlusoproximal carious primary molar. The restorative treatments were carried out following random allocation of participants to either HT or ART. Baseline measures and the outcome data were assessed through participant report using questionnaire that recorded the child’s level of comfort and general opinion of the technique followed by clinical examination to determine the occlusovertical dimension and finally the time taken for each procedure. The obtained data were subjected to analysis by SPSS 11.5. Chi-square with Yate’s correction and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to investigate the primary outcome. Paired and independent t-tests were used to evaluate the dependent variables. Results: The HT was rated by children as causing no apparent discomfort compared to ART. Statistically significant increase in Occlusal Vertical Dimension (OVD) following HT was recorded. The ART outperformed HT in terms of patient reported aesthetic acceptability and operator’s time concern. Patient satisfaction was similar in both groups as no statistical significant difference was observed. Conclusion: Occlusoproximal lesions in children can be treated with minimal discomfort using HT. ART can also be recommended owing to its acceptable aesthetics, no OVD changes and minimal time requirement. Patient satisfaction was evident in both ART as well as HT.