Abstract
A new set of criteria for assessing the quality of restorations using modern restorative materials, named FDI criteria, was recently introduced. This study tested the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in survival estimate percentages of ART restorations assessed using selected FDI and modified ART criteria after 1 and 5 years. One operator placed a total of 60 class I and 30 Class II high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in ninety 14- to15-year-olds. Two calibrated and independent evaluators using both criteria evaluated restorations on diestone replicas at baseline and after 1 and 5 years. Statistical analyses were done using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. The survival results of ART restorations assessed using both sets of criteria after 1 and 5 years (p = 0.27) did not differ significantly. Three ART restorations were assessed as failures according to the ART criteria, while they were assessed as survived using the FDI criteria. We conclude that the modified ART criteria enable reliable assessment of ART restorations in permanent teeth from diestone replicas and that there was no significant difference in survival estimates of ART restorations assessed using both sets of criteria. The null hypothesis was accepted.