Beschreibung:
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Objective: This study compares the quality of class I restorations made with the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique and conventional class I amalgam restorations. Methods: The study was carried out among secondary school students in Mzuzu, Malawi. First‐year students in 1987 who needed at least two class I restorations were selected. Based on a split‐mouth design, each participant received both ART and conventional restorations. The 89 pairs of class I cavities were divided randomly into two groups, since two different cermet ionomer cement (CIC) filling materials were used. Impressions of the restorations and subsequent models were made shortly after restoration, after six months, one year, two years, and three years. The quality of the restorations was determined on the models following the US Public Health Service criteria. Bulk fracture, contour, marginal integrity, and surface texture of the restorations were recorded and evaluated separately. Survival rates were determined by the resultant score of all criteria. Results: Though conventional amalgam restorations performed better on all criteria, this difference was significant only for the contour criterion. The survival rates of ART restorations after three years (81.0%) were lower than those of amalgam restorations (90.4%) (P=.067). Conclusions: The quality of ART class I restorations is competitive with that of conventional amalgam restorations.</jats:p>