| Literature DB >> 31452950 |
Lojain Abdulaziz Melebari1, Seba Essam Attas1, Abla Arafa2,3.
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the motivational effect of multi-colored restoration on the anxiety level of pediatric patients at thedental clinic and its motivational effect on their oral hygiene status. Material and methods: A total of 30 participants.Entities:
Keywords: behavior management; multicolored restoration; plaque index
Year: 2019 PMID: 31452950 PMCID: PMC6704034 DOI: 10.1002/cre2.194
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Exp Dent Res ISSN: 2057-4347
Details of restorative materials used in the study and participants grouping
| Restorative material | Manufacture | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | Category | Product | Composition | |
| Group A | Multicolored compomer | Twinky Star® | Bis‐GMA, diurethane dimethacrylate, TEGDMA, carboxylic acid modified methacrylate, silicon dioxide, “BHT,” and camphoroquinone. Fillers: barium aluminum fluoro borosilicate glass. Dioxide particles and glimmer. | VOCO, dentalists, GmbH, Germany |
| Group B | Conventional compomer | Dyract ®Extra | Dimethacrylate, filler: ytterbium trifluoride, Al‐fluorosilicate glass, spheroid mixed oxide, initiators, stabilizers, and pigments. | Dentsply, USA |
Figure 1CONSORT diagram depicting participants's enrollment in the study
The age means vales and gender distribution of the test groups
| Variable | Group A ( | Group B ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 6.38 ± 1.66 | 7.92 ± 1.49 | 0.013 |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 9 (69.23%) | 8 (57.14%) | 0.17 |
| Female | 4 (30.76%) | 6 (42.85%) | |
| dmf‐t | 7.13 ± 2.83 | 7.64 ± 3.17 | 0.65 |
| DMF‐T | 4.5 ± 3.69 | 5.43 ± 4.04 | 0.715 |
Significant.
Frankl rating score FRS at different stages of the treatment among the test groups
| Variable | Group A ( | Group B ( | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FRS Time | −− | − | + | ++ |
| −− | − | + | ++ |
| |
| V1 | Start | 0% | 61.5% | 30.8% | 7.7% | 0.58 | 0% | 14.3% | 78.6% | 7.1% | 0.002 |
| During | 0% | 23.1% | 61.5% | 15.4% | 0.09 | 0% | 14.3% | 78.6% | 7.1% | 0.002 | |
| End | 0% | 7.7% | 46.2% | 46.2% | 0.014 | 0% | 0% | 57.1% | 42.9% | 0.59 | |
| V2 | Follow‐up | 17.7% | 8.3% | 66.7% | 8.3% | 0.01 | 14.3% | 7.1% | 64.3% | 14.3% | 0.008 |
Abbreviations: −−, defiantly negative; −, negative; +, positive; ++, defiantly positive; V1, treatment visit; V2, follow‐up visit.
Significant.
Figure 2Bar diagram depicting facial image scale at different stages of treatment among the test groups
Plaque index score and gingival index score comparison at the first visit and the follow‐up visit between the test groups
| Variable | Group A ( | Group B ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V1 | V2 | V1 | V2 | ||
| Plaque index | Mean ± | 1.40 ± 0.67a | 0.57 ± 0.41b | 1.13 ± 0.33a | 0.83 |
| Median | 1.50 | 0.50 | 1.20 | 0.90 | |
| Score difference | −.50 | −.25 | |||
| Gingival index | Mean ± | 1.07 ± 0.39a | 0.57 ± 0.43b | 1.11 ± 0.22a | 0.86 |
| Median | 1.25 | 0.75 | 1.12 | 0.87 | |
| Score difference | −0.50 | −0.37 | |||
Note. Different small letter superscripts indicate significance within the row.
Abbreviations: V1, treatment visit; V2, follow‐up visit.
Figure 3Scatter diagram depicting the correlation between the score of Frankl scale after the treatment at the first visit and plaque index mean score at the beginning of the follow‐up