An RCT of atraumatic restorative treatment for older adults: 5 year results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: to compare the survival of ART and a conventional restorative technique (CT) for restoring carious lesions in older adults after 5 years. METHODS: In this parallel randomised controlled clinical trial, 219 independently-living adults were recruited from a dental hospital/community and a geriatric day hospital. Ninety-nine patients who met the inclusion criteria and presented with carious lesions were randomly allocated to receive either ART or conventional restorations (anaesthesia, rotary instruments and resin-modified glass ionomer). The status of restorations was assessed 6 months, 1, 2 and 5 years after restoration placement. Estimates of cumulative survival were calculated for each interval between assessments and a Cox Proportional Hazards (PH) model was fitted to the interval-censored survival time. RESULTS: Three hundred restorations (ART n=142; CT n=158) were placed on 99 patients, 46 males and 53 females, with a mean age of 73.2, SD: 6.8 (65-90 yrs). After 5 years, ART and CT presented cumulative probability of survival of 85% and 79% (p=0.8095), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ART presents survival rates comparable to a conventional technique, when treating older adults after 5 years. The ART approach could be a useful tool to provide dental care for older adults particularly in the nonclinical setting. (Trial Registration number: ISRCTN 76299321). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study shows that ART presents survival rates comparable to conventional techniques to treat carious lesions in older patients after 5 years. It is well accepted by this age cohort, and therefore could be an alternative to treat the elderly, especially those who are homebound or cannot attend the dentist.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".