human
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: The treatment of proximal caries has changed during the last decade . The present study evaluates a recently developed material , applied in box-only preparations in primary molars . At the twelve-month evaluation of this clinical study , it became obvious that Dyract can be an alternative for Tytin in the primary dentition , though there is some change in color of the Dyract material . In time , the marginal adaptation of Dyract  seems to improve . The preparation time for both material s is comparable . The total treatment time of box-only Dyract restorations ( including an occlusal sealant ) , however , is longer compared to conventional class II Tytin restorations . Although in both groups radiolucencies were found at the baseline radiograph evaluation , no sign was found of secondary caries . One recurrent caries lesion was found adjacent to a Dyract restoration . It should be emphasized that one-year data do not indicate the longterm success of restorations OBJECTIVES To assess and compare the cumulative survival rate of amalgam and atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) restorations in primary molars over 3 years . METHODS 280 children aged 6 - 7 years old were enrolled in a cluster r and omized controlled clinical trial using a parallel group design covering two treatment groups : conventional restorative treatment with amalgam ( CRT ) and atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) using a high-viscosity glass-ionomer ( HVGIC ) Ketac Molar Easymix . Three pedodontists placed 750 restorations ( 364 amalgam and 386 ART in 126 and 154 children , respectively ) which were evaluated at 0.5 , 1 , 2 and 3 years . The proportional hazard rate regression model with frailty correction , ANOVA and Wald tests , and the Jackknife procedure were applied in analysing the data . RESULTS The cumulative survival rates over 3 years for all , single- and multiple-surface CRT/amalgam restorations ( 72.6 % , 93.4 % , 64.7 % , respectively ) were no different from those of comparable ART/HVGIC restorations ( 66.8 % ; 90.1 % and 56.4 % , respectively ) ( p=0.10 ) . Single-surface restorations had higher survival rates than multiple-surface restorations for the both treatment procedures ( p<0.0001 ) . A higher proportion of restorations failed because of mechanical reasons ( 94.8 % ) than of secondary caries ( 5.2 % ) . No difference in reasons for restoration failures between all types of amalgam and ART/HVGIC restorations were observed ( p=0.24 ) . SIGNIFICANCE The high-viscosity glass-ionomer used in this study in conjunction with the ART is a viable option for restoring carious dentin lesions in single surfaces in vital primary molars Mixed treatment comparison ( MTC ) meta- analysis is a generalization of st and ard pairwise meta- analysis for A vs B trials , to data structures that include , for example , A vs B , B vs C , and A vs C trials . There are two roles for MTC : one is to strengthen inference concerning the relative efficacy of two treatments , by including both ' direct ' and ' indirect ' comparisons . The other is to facilitate simultaneous inference regarding all treatments , in order for example to select the best treatment . In this paper , we present a range of Bayesian hierarchical models using the Markov chain Monte Carlo software WinBUGS . These are multivariate r and om effects models that allow for variation in true treatment effects across trials . We consider models where the between-trials variance is homogeneous across treatment comparisons as well as heterogeneous variance models . We also compare models with fixed ( unconstrained ) baseline study effects with models with r and om baselines drawn from a common distribution . These models are applied to an illustrative data set and posterior parameter distributions are compared . We discuss model critique and model selection , illustrating the role of Bayesian deviance analysis , and node-based model criticism . The assumptions underlying the MTC models and their parameterization are also discussed Objectives To evaluate the clinical performance of a compomer material ( Dyract ® ) in comparison with dental amalgam ( Contour ® ) for management of proximal caries in primary molars in young children . Setting General dental practice , and a dental hospital paediatric clinic . Method This was a prospect i ve study . A split mouth design was used with identical pairs of minimal Class II cavities , of matched tooth type inthe same dental arch , usually diagnosed with the use of bitewing radiographs . Seventy-eight pairs of restorations were completed ofwhich 60 pairs were available for evaluation after 24 months . Results Comparable retention rates were observed for both Dyract and amalgam . The retention rates were high for both material s , with only four amalgam and two Dyract restorations failing over 24 months . Significantly better marginal integrity ( P < 0.05 ) was observed for Dyract compared with amalgam with no significant differences between the two material s for recurrent caries , wear or surface texture . Conclusions Dyract seemed to be a suitable alternative to amalgam for proximal restorations in primary molars of young children for use in general dental practice OBJECTIVE To compare the clinical performance of two glass-ionomer cements (GICs)for  Class II restorations in primary molars : a conventional cement ( Fuji II ) and a resin-modified cement ( Vitremer ) . DESIGN Split mouth and r and om assignment to the two material s were used for the majority of the molars . SAMPLE AND METHODS Forty consecutive 4 - 7-year-old children were included . One operator made 115 restorations : 53 with Vitremer and 62 with Fuji II . The restorations were evaluated clinical ly , radiographically and from colour photographs . RESULTS The cumulative success rate of the Vitremer restorations was 94 % and that of the Fuji II restorations 81 % . The difference is statistically significant . The risk of a failed restoration was more than five times higher with Fuji II than with Vitremer as the restorative material . Of the 13 unsuccessful restorations , seven had lost their retention , four had secondary caries , and two were fractured . CONCLUSIONS The resin-modified GIC offered advantages over the conventional GIC for restoring approximal caries in primary molars PURPOSE The authors conducted a r and omized clinical trial to evaluate the survival rate of esthetic restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars 24 months after placement . The null hypothesis was that there is no difference among survival rates of the restorative material s used . METHODS Forty-eight children ( mean age , 5 years 9 months ) received 141 restorations in beveled cavosurface margins in primary molars r and omly assigned by lottery method : 46 received treatment with Vitremer Tri-Cure Glass Ionomer System ( 3 M ESPE Dental Products , St. Paul , Minn. ) ( 33 Class I and 13 Class II restorations ) , 51 received treatment with Freedom ( SDI , Bayswater , Victoria , Australia ) ( 36 Class I and 15 Class II restorations ) ; 44 received treatment with TPH Spectrum ( Dentsply , Petropolis , Rio de Janeiro , Brazil ) ( 30 Class I and 14 Class II restorations ) . Two examiners whose technique had been calibrated ( weight kappa > 0.85 ) evaluated the restorations using modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria and Visible Plaque Index score at baseline and at 12 , 18 and 24 months . RESULTS After two years , the authors censored data for 17 restorations , considered 101 restorations to be clinical ly successful and deemed 23 restorations failed because of loss of marginal integrity , anatomical form discrepancies and secondary caries . For Class I and Class II restorations , the cumulative survival rates were higher than 80 percent and 55 percent , respectively , for all material s ( life table , Gehan-Wilcoxon Test , P > .05 ; P > .05 ) . CONCLUSIONS At the 24-month clinical recall , the authors found no differences among material s in Class I ( P > .05 ) or Class II beveled preparations ( P > .05 ) in primary molars , but all material s showed higher survival rates in Class I than in Class II restorations OBJECTIVE This r and omised clinical trial evaluated the survival rate of  resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars , over 48 months . METHODS Forty-eight children received 141 restorations in beveled cavosurface margin preparations in primary molars r and omly assigned by a lottery method : 46 received treatment with Vitremer Tri-Cure Glass Ionomer System ( 33 Class I and 13 Class II restorations ) ; 51 received  treatment with Freedom ( 36 Class I and 15 Class II restorations ) ; 44 received treatment with TPH Spectrum ( 30 Class I and 14 Class II restorations ) . Two calibrated examiners ( weight kappa > or = 0.85 ) evaluated the restorations using the modified USPHS criteria and visible plaque index score at baseline and after 12 , 24 , 36 and 48 months . Cox regression with survival analysis and logistic regression evaluated the clinical performance of restorations . RESULTS After 48 months , 11 teeth had exfoliated , 16 restorations were dropouts , 83 restorations were clinical ly successful of which 26 had used Vitremer , 32 had used Freedom and 25 had used TPH Spectrum . Thirty-one restorations failed because of secondary caries , fractures and loss of retention . The cumulative survival was 73.9 % , 83.4 % and 79.6 % , respectively for Vitremer , Freedom and THP Spectrum with no differences among material s ( Log Rank Mantel-Cox , p>0.05 ) . However , the Class II cavity preparation reduced the survival of the restorations ( OR=5.1 ) for all material s evaluated ( p>0.05 ) . CONCLUSIONS The life expectancy of Vitremer , Freedom and THP Spectrum in Class I and Class II restorations could be comparable after 48 months The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of  resin modified GIC with amalgam as a restorative material , in Class-II cavities of primary molars . Restorations were evaluated at four , eight , and twelve months for their marginal integrity , anatomic form and development of recurrent caries . When each parameter was considered separately , there was no difference in the success rate between the two groups , except development of recurrent caries significantly less ( p<0.05 ) in RMGIC group(4.7 % ) compared to amalgam group ( 12.5 % ) at twelve month follow up . However , the cumulative success rate at 12 month was found to be significantly higher ( p<0.05 ) in RMGIC ( Fuji II LC ) group(83.1 % ) compared to amalgam(72 % ) The clinical performance of the compomer Dyract ( L.D. Caulk , Dentsply ) was evaluated and compared with that of the hybrid composite resin Prisma TPH ( L.D. Caulk , Dentsply ) in restorations of 60 bilateral matched pairs of primary teeth . After 1 year , the overall failure rate for both restorative material s was 1.7 percent . There were no statistically significant differences in recurrence of caries , color matching , marginal integrity or anatomic form . The only statistically significant differences were in marginal discoloration and wear , where the compomer was inferior to the hybrid composite resin . The authors conclude that compomer is a suitable alternative to amalgam for restoring primary teeth OBJECTIVE To compare a silver-reinforced glass ionomer material ( cermet ) with a resin-modified glass ionomer in minimal Class II preparations in primary teeth . METHODS Matched pairs of primary molars with approximal caries that required operative treatment were used . Each cavity was filled with either Vitremer or Ketac-Silver . The restorations were followed for at least 36 months and examined annually using bitewing radiographs and clinical inspections . Impressions were taken at each recall and models were examined microscopically . RESULTS After 36 months , one of the resin-modified glass ionomer ( RMGI ) restorations and 13 ( 26.5 % ) of the silver cermet restorations had failed . The RMGI failed because of secondary caries , while most of the failures of the silver cermet fillings were marginal defects alone or in combination with secondary caries . The median survival time ( MST ) for the silver cermet restorations was 37 months . The RMGI restorations had a MST exceeding 42 months , but MST could not be calculated exactly because of the low failure rate during the study period . CONCLUSIONS The resin-modified glass ionomer had the overall best performance of the two material s under comparison . The silver cermet material can not be recommended for Class II restorations in primary teeth PURPOSE This study was performed to compare the clinical performance between the compomer F2000 and amalgam Dispersalloy in Class II restorations in primary molars over a 2-year period . METHODS Seventy-five amalgam and 75 compomer restorations were placed in 75 children based on a split-mouth design . The restorations were evaluated after 1 week and after 6 , 12 , 18 , and 24 months of oral function . The evaluation consisted of a clinical assessment according to modified Ryge criteria , a radiographic examination using bite-wing  radiographs , and an observation of  epoxy casts under scanning electron microscopy .  RESULTS The results showed statistically significant differences in the marginal adaptation and anatomic form between amalgam and compomer restorations . A higher number of compomer restorations were rated as Bravo , while a higher number of amalgam restorations were rated as Alpha at 2 
    Output:
    
agent
Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer , resin-modified glass ionomer cement , amalgam , and composite resin .
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: The treatment of proximal caries has changed during the last decade . The present study evaluates a recently developed material , applied in box-only preparations in primary molars . At the twelve-month evaluation of this clinical study , it became obvious that Dyract can be an alternative for Tytin in the primary dentition , though there is some change in color of the Dyract material . In time , the marginal adaptation of Dyract  seems to improve . The preparation time for both material s is comparable . The total treatment time of box-only Dyract restorations ( including an occlusal sealant ) , however , is longer compared to conventional class II Tytin restorations . Although in both groups radiolucencies were found at the baseline radiograph evaluation , no sign was found of secondary caries . One recurrent caries lesion was found adjacent to a Dyract restoration . It should be emphasized that one-year data do not indicate the longterm success of restorations OBJECTIVES To assess and compare the cumulative survival rate of amalgam and atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) restorations in primary molars over 3 years . METHODS 280 children aged 6 - 7 years old were enrolled in a cluster r and omized controlled clinical trial using a parallel group design covering two treatment groups : conventional restorative treatment with amalgam ( CRT ) and atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) using a high-viscosity glass-ionomer ( HVGIC ) Ketac Molar Easymix . Three pedodontists placed 750 restorations ( 364 amalgam and 386 ART in 126 and 154 children , respectively ) which were evaluated at 0.5 , 1 , 2 and 3 years . The proportional hazard rate regression model with frailty correction , ANOVA and Wald tests , and the Jackknife procedure were applied in analysing the data . RESULTS The cumulative survival rates over 3 years for all , single- and multiple-surface CRT/amalgam restorations ( 72.6 % , 93.4 % , 64.7 % , respectively ) were no different from those of comparable ART/HVGIC restorations ( 66.8 % ; 90.1 % and 56.4 % , respectively ) ( p=0.10 ) . Single-surface restorations had higher survival rates than multiple-surface restorations for the both treatment procedures ( p<0.0001 ) . A higher proportion of restorations failed because of mechanical reasons ( 94.8 % ) than of secondary caries ( 5.2 % ) . No difference in reasons for restoration failures between all types of amalgam and ART/HVGIC restorations were observed ( p=0.24 ) . SIGNIFICANCE The high-viscosity glass-ionomer used in this study in conjunction with the ART is a viable option for restoring carious dentin lesions in single surfaces in vital primary molars Mixed treatment comparison ( MTC ) meta- analysis is a generalization of st and ard pairwise meta- analysis for A vs B trials , to data structures that include , for example , A vs B , B vs C , and A vs C trials . There are two roles for MTC : one is to strengthen inference concerning the relative efficacy of two treatments , by including both ' direct ' and ' indirect ' comparisons . The other is to facilitate simultaneous inference regarding all treatments , in order for example to select the best treatment . In this paper , we present a range of Bayesian hierarchical models using the Markov chain Monte Carlo software WinBUGS . These are multivariate r and om effects models that allow for variation in true treatment effects across trials . We consider models where the between-trials variance is homogeneous across treatment comparisons as well as heterogeneous variance models . We also compare models with fixed ( unconstrained ) baseline study effects with models with r and om baselines drawn from a common distribution . These models are applied to an illustrative data set and posterior parameter distributions are compared . We discuss model critique and model selection , illustrating the role of Bayesian deviance analysis , and node-based model criticism . The assumptions underlying the MTC models and their parameterization are also discussed Objectives To evaluate the clinical performance of a compomer material ( Dyract ® ) in comparison with dental amalgam ( Contour ® ) for management of proximal caries in primary molars in young children . Setting General dental practice , and a dental hospital paediatric clinic . Method This was a prospect i ve study . A split mouth design was used with identical pairs of minimal Class II cavities , of matched tooth type inthe same dental arch , usually diagnosed with the use of bitewing radiographs . Seventy-eight pairs of restorations were completed ofwhich 60 pairs were available for evaluation after 24 months . Results Comparable retention rates were observed for both Dyract and amalgam . The retention rates were high for both material s , with only four amalgam and two Dyract restorations failing over 24 months . Significantly better marginal integrity ( P < 0.05 ) was observed for Dyract compared with amalgam with no significant differences between the two material s for recurrent caries , wear or surface texture . Conclusions Dyract seemed to be a suitable alternative to amalgam for proximal restorations in primary molars of young children for use in general dental practice OBJECTIVE To compare the clinical performance of two glass-ionomer cements (GICs)for  Class II restorations in primary molars : a conventional cement ( Fuji II ) and a resin-modified cement ( Vitremer ) . DESIGN Split mouth and r and om assignment to the two material s were used for the majority of the molars . SAMPLE AND METHODS Forty consecutive 4 - 7-year-old children were included . One operator made 115 restorations : 53 with Vitremer and 62 with Fuji II . The restorations were evaluated clinical ly , radiographically and from colour photographs . RESULTS The cumulative success rate of the Vitremer restorations was 94 % and that of the Fuji II restorations 81 % . The difference is statistically significant . The risk of a failed restoration was more than five times higher with Fuji II than with Vitremer as the restorative material . Of the 13 unsuccessful restorations , seven had lost their retention , four had secondary caries , and two were fractured . CONCLUSIONS The resin-modified GIC offered advantages over the conventional GIC for restoring approximal caries in primary molars PURPOSE The authors conducted a r and omized clinical trial to evaluate the survival rate of esthetic restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars 24 months after placement . The null hypothesis was that there is no difference among survival rates of the restorative material s used . METHODS Forty-eight children ( mean age , 5 years 9 months ) received 141 restorations in beveled cavosurface margins in primary molars r and omly assigned by lottery method : 46 received treatment with Vitremer Tri-Cure Glass Ionomer System ( 3 M ESPE Dental Products , St. Paul , Minn. ) ( 33 Class I and 13 Class II restorations ) , 51 received treatment with Freedom ( SDI , Bayswater , Victoria , Australia ) ( 36 Class I and 15 Class II restorations ) ; 44 received treatment with TPH Spectrum ( Dentsply , Petropolis , Rio de Janeiro , Brazil ) ( 30 Class I and 14 Class II restorations ) . Two examiners whose technique had been calibrated ( weight kappa > 0.85 ) evaluated the restorations using modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria and Visible Plaque Index score at baseline and at 12 , 18 and 24 months . RESULTS After two years , the authors censored data for 17 restorations , considered 101 restorations to be clinical ly successful and deemed 23 restorations failed because of loss of marginal integrity , anatomical form discrepancies and secondary caries . For Class I and Class II restorations , the cumulative survival rates were higher than 80 percent and 55 percent , respectively , for all material s ( life table , Gehan-Wilcoxon Test , P > .05 ; P > .05 ) . CONCLUSIONS At the 24-month clinical recall , the authors found no differences among material s in Class I ( P > .05 ) or Class II beveled preparations ( P > .05 ) in primary molars , but all material s showed higher survival rates in Class I than in Class II restorations OBJECTIVE This r and omised clinical trial evaluated the survival rate of  resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars , over 48 months . METHODS Forty-eight children received 141 restorations in beveled cavosurface margin preparations in primary molars r and omly assigned by a lottery method : 46 received treatment with Vitremer Tri-Cure Glass Ionomer System ( 33 Class I and 13 Class II restorations ) ; 51 received  treatment with Freedom ( 36 Class I and 15 Class II restorations ) ; 44 received treatment with TPH Spectrum ( 30 Class I and 14 Class II restorations ) . Two calibrated examiners ( weight kappa > or = 0.85 ) evaluated the restorations using the modified USPHS criteria and visible plaque index score at baseline and after 12 , 24 , 36 and 48 months . Cox regression with survival analysis and logistic regression evaluated the clinical performance of restorations . RESULTS After 48 months , 11 teeth had exfoliated , 16 restorations were dropouts , 83 restorations were clinical ly successful of which 26 had used Vitremer , 32 had used Freedom and 25 had used TPH Spectrum . Thirty-one restorations failed because of secondary caries , fractures and loss of retention . The cumulative survival was 73.9 % , 83.4 % and 79.6 % , respectively for Vitremer , Freedom and THP Spectrum with no differences among material s ( Log Rank Mantel-Cox , p>0.05 ) . However , the Class II cavity preparation reduced the survival of the restorations ( OR=5.1 ) for all material s evaluated ( p>0.05 ) . CONCLUSIONS The life expectancy of Vitremer , Freedom and THP Spectrum in Class I and Class II restorations could be comparable after 48 months The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of  resin modified GIC with amalgam as a restorative material , in Class-II cavities of primary molars . Restorations were evaluated at four , eight , and twelve months for their marginal integrity , anatomic form and development of recurrent caries . When each parameter was considered separately , there was no difference in the success rate between the two groups , except development of recurrent caries significantly less ( p<0.05 ) in RMGIC group(4.7 % ) compared to amalgam group ( 12.5 % ) at twelve month follow up . However , the cumulative success rate at 12 month was found to be significantly higher ( p<0.05 ) in RMGIC ( Fuji II LC ) group(83.1 % ) compared to amalgam(72 % ) The clinical performance of the compomer Dyract ( L.D. Caulk , Dentsply ) was evaluated and compared with that of the hybrid composite resin Prisma TPH ( L.D. Caulk , Dentsply ) in restorations of 60 bilateral matched pairs of primary teeth . After 1 year , the overall failure rate for both restorative material s was 1.7 percent . There were no statistically significant differences in recurrence of caries , color matching , marginal integrity or anatomic form . The only statistically significant differences were in marginal discoloration and wear , where the compomer was inferior to the hybrid composite resin . The authors conclude that compomer is a suitable alternative to amalgam for restoring primary teeth OBJECTIVE To compare a silver-reinforced glass ionomer material ( cermet ) with a resin-modified glass ionomer in minimal Class II preparations in primary teeth . METHODS Matched pairs of primary molars with approximal caries that required operative treatment were used . Each cavity was filled with either Vitremer or Ketac-Silver . The restorations were followed for at least 36 months and examined annually using bitewing radiographs and clinical inspections . Impressions were taken at each recall and models were examined microscopically . RESULTS After 36 months , one of the resin-modified glass ionomer ( RMGI ) restorations and 13 ( 26.5 % ) of the silver cermet restorations had failed . The RMGI failed because of secondary caries , while most of the failures of the silver cermet fillings were marginal defects alone or in combination with secondary caries . The median survival time ( MST ) for the silver cermet restorations was 37 months . The RMGI restorations had a MST exceeding 42 months , but MST could not be calculated exactly because of the low failure rate during the study period . CONCLUSIONS The resin-modified glass ionomer had the overall best performance of the two material s under comparison . The silver cermet material can not be recommended for Class II restorations in primary teeth PURPOSE This study was performed to compare the clinical performance between the compomer F2000 and amalgam Dispersalloy in Class II restorations in primary molars over a 2-year period . METHODS Seventy-five amalgam and 75 compomer restorations were placed in 75 children based on a split-mouth design . The restorations were evaluated after 1 week and after 6 , 12 , 18 , and 24 months of oral function . The evaluation consisted of a clinical assessment according to modified Ryge criteria , a radiographic examination using bite-wing  radiographs , and an observation of  epoxy casts under scanning electron microscopy .  RESULTS The results showed statistically significant differences in the marginal adaptation and anatomic form between amalgam and compomer restorations . A higher number of compomer restorations were rated as Bravo , while a higher number of amalgam restorations were rated as Alpha at 2 
    Output:
    