R H Attar1, Z D Baghdadi. 1. Department of Preventive Dentistry, Riyadh Colleges of Dentistry and Pharmacy, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, reem.attar@student.riyadh.edu.sa.
Abstract
AIM: This study aimed to compare the effects of two types of distraction techniques: passive, using audiovisual glasses (AV glasses), versus active, using an iPad, as an adjunct to local analgesia during vital pulp therapy in children. METHODS:Pain behaviour, and heart rates from an exposure group (treatment with the aid of an iPad) and control group (treatment with the aid of AV glasses) were compared in a randomised, split-mouth design using the Wilcoxon signed rank test (pain and behaviour) and paired t test for heart rate scores at p 0.05. RESULTS: Children (39) (mean age 6.27 years) received the two treatment sessions. Generally, AV glasses had higher pain and behaviour scores than iPad. Pain results demonstrated marginal significant differences between the two distraction techniques during local analgesia administration (p 0.076) and caries removal (p 0.071). A significant difference between the two techniques during local analgesia administration only (p 0.017), in favour of an iPad. Average heart rates over the treatment intervals were lower among iPad group than those using AV glasses group. Patients preferred an iPad more than AV glasses (24 versus 15). Treatment sessions were significantly shorter for iPad. CONCLUSIONS: Active distraction using an iPad demonstrated better performance than passive distraction using AV glasses.
RCT Entities:
AIM: This study aimed to compare the effects of two types of distraction techniques: passive, using audiovisual glasses (AV glasses), versus active, using an iPad, as an adjunct to local analgesia during vital pulp therapy in children. METHODS:Pain behaviour, and heart rates from an exposure group (treatment with the aid of an iPad) and control group (treatment with the aid of AV glasses) were compared in a randomised, split-mouth design using the Wilcoxon signed rank test (pain and behaviour) and paired t test for heart rate scores at p 0.05. RESULTS:Children (39) (mean age 6.27 years) received the two treatment sessions. Generally, AV glasses had higher pain and behaviour scores than iPad. Pain results demonstrated marginal significant differences between the two distraction techniques during local analgesia administration (p 0.076) and caries removal (p 0.071). A significant difference between the two techniques during local analgesia administration only (p 0.017), in favour of an iPad. Average heart rates over the treatment intervals were lower among iPad group than those using AV glasses group. Patients preferred an iPad more than AV glasses (24 versus 15). Treatment sessions were significantly shorter for iPad. CONCLUSIONS: Active distraction using an iPad demonstrated better performance than passive distraction using AV glasses.
Authors: M J Koepp; R N Gunn; A D Lawrence; V J Cunningham; A Dagher; T Jones; D J Brooks; C J Bench; P M Grasby Journal: Nature Date: 1998-05-21 Impact factor: 49.962