Difference of Cost-efficacy Between Atraumatic Restoration Treatment (ART) and Composite Resin Restorations in Primary Molars: A Randomized Clinical Trial

The aim of this randomized clinical trial study is to compare the longevity of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) using high viscosity GIC and Conventional Treatment using composite resin under rubber dam isolation and local anesthesia (CT) in primary molars. As secondary outcomes, cost-efficacy, self-reported discomfort and cooperation will also be tested. Children aging between 3 to 6 years old presenting at least one occlusal and/or occlusoproximal cavity will be randomly assigned to one of two groups according to the dental treatment: ART (experimental group) or CT (control group). The dental treatment will be performed at a dental care trailer located in a Public School in Barueri (São Paulo, Brazil). The unit of analysis for randomization will be the child. A number of 204 teeth presenting occlusal cavities and 240 teeth presenting occlusoproximal cavities were set after sample size calculation. The primary outcome will be the restorations' longevity, which will be assessed after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months by two evaluators through clinical examination according to Frencken et al. (1998) criteria for occlusal restorations and Roeleveld et al. (2006) criteria for occlusoproximal restorations. The time spent during the dental treatment and all materials used will be considered for estimating the cost-efficacy of each treatment. The individual's discomfort will be also measured after each dental procedure using the Facial Scale of Wong-Baker. Cooperation will be assessed by the operator using a 5-point scale.