R Maciel1, D Salvador2, K Azoubel2, R Redivivo3, C Maciel4, C da Franca2, E Amerongen5, V Colares2. 1. Paediatric Dentistry Department, Dental School, University of Pernambuco, 147. Sala 603. Boa Vista., Recife, Pernambuco, CEP 50050-100, Brazil. rosariomaciel24@hotmail.com. 2. Paediatric Dentistry Department, Dental School, University of Pernambuco, 147. Sala 603. Boa Vista., Recife, Pernambuco, CEP 50050-100, Brazil. 3. University Universo, Goiânia, Brazil. 4. Endodontic Specialist, University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil. 5. Paediatric Dentistry Department, Academic Centre for Dentistry, ACTA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the opinion of children and their parents of four different types of restoration placed in primary molars. METHODS: A mixed method study in which both children and their parents were involved. In the quantitative study, children and parents gave their opinion using a face scale about four different types of restoration immediately after placement, evaluating how satisfied they were. In the qualitative part, children and their parents were interviewed to report their preference among the four types of restoration using dental models and photos. RESULTS: In the quantitative study, 1045 restorations were placed, being conventional restorations (198 with amalgam and 205 with composite resin) and atraumatic interventions [408 with glass ionomer: ART, atraumatic restorative treatment, and 234 with preformed metal crowns (PMCs): Hall technique]. Almost all participants (children and parents) gave a positive opinion (from 94.9 to 100%) on the four types of restoration placed in the children's teeth. There was no statistical significant difference in opinion in terms of acceptance of the four types of restoration placed (Chi square test, p value > 0.05). In the qualitative approach, 18 children and 11 parents were interviewed. If they could choose, children (16/18) preferred the PMCs, while parents (10/11) preferred aesthetic materials such as composite resin and glass ionomer cement. CONCLUSIONS: A high degree of satisfaction was observed with children and their parents in the four types of restoration after placement. However, if it could be chosen in advance, children prefer the PMCs and parents a tooth-coloured material.
AIM: To investigate the opinion of children and their parents of four different types of restoration placed in primary molars. METHODS: A mixed method study in which both children and their parents were involved. In the quantitative study, children and parents gave their opinion using a face scale about four different types of restoration immediately after placement, evaluating how satisfied they were. In the qualitative part, children and their parents were interviewed to report their preference among the four types of restoration using dental models and photos. RESULTS: In the quantitative study, 1045 restorations were placed, being conventional restorations (198 with amalgam and 205 with composite resin) and atraumatic interventions [408 with glass ionomer: ART, atraumatic restorative treatment, and 234 with preformed metal crowns (PMCs): Hall technique]. Almost all participants (children and parents) gave a positive opinion (from 94.9 to 100%) on the four types of restoration placed in the children's teeth. There was no statistical significant difference in opinion in terms of acceptance of the four types of restoration placed (Chi square test, p value > 0.05). In the qualitative approach, 18 children and 11 parents were interviewed. If they could choose, children (16/18) preferred the PMCs, while parents (10/11) preferred aesthetic materials such as composite resin and glass ionomer cement. CONCLUSIONS: A high degree of satisfaction was observed with children and their parents in the four types of restoration after placement. However, if it could be chosen in advance, children prefer the PMCs and parents a tooth-coloured material.
Authors: Ruth M Santamaria; Nicola P T Innes; Vita Machiulskiene; Dafydd J P Evans; Mohammad Alkilzy; Christian H Splieth Journal: Int J Paediatr Dent Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: N P T Innes; D J P Evans; C C Bonifacio; M Geneser; D Hesse; M Heimer; M Kanellis; V Machiulskiene; J Narbutaité; I C Olegário; A Owais; M P Araujo; D P Raggio; C Splieth; E van Amerongen; K Weber-Gasparoni; R M Santamaria Journal: Br Dent J Date: 2017-03-24 Impact factor: 1.626
Authors: Manal A Almaghrabi; Emad A Albadawi; Mohammad A Dahlan; Hanan R Aljohani; Neveen M Ahmed; Riham A Showlag Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2022-09-08 Impact factor: 2.314