U B Dixit1, L Moorthy2. 1. Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, DY Patil University-School of Dentistry, Sector 7, Nerul, Navi Mumbai, India. umadixit2000@yahoo.com. 2. Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, DY Patil University-School of Dentistry, Sector 7, Nerul, Navi Mumbai, India.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of interactive distraction technique on the severity of gagging and success of impression taking in children between age 5 and 10 years. METHODS: This single blind, randomised controlled trial recruited 48 children aged 5-10 years requiring maxillary impressions. Selected children were randomly allocated to one of the two groups: (1) Test group, use of interactive distraction, and (2) Control group, no use of interactive distraction, during impression taking. Dental anxiety was scored using Facial Image Scale (FIS) before and after impression taking. Gagging-related Impression Success Scale (GISS) and Gagging Severity Index (GSI) were recorded by a blinded assessor. Nonparametric tests were used to compare the variables between the groups. RESULTS: Maxillary impressions were successfully recorded in all children in the Test group; either with no gag (87.5%) or with gag (12.5%). In 33.3% control children impressions could not be recorded. Statistically significant, strong association was found between the interactive distraction and GISS (p = 0.003, Cramer's V = 0.32). Mean GSI and post-impression FIS scores were significantly lesser in the Test group (p = 0.029 and p = 0.048, respectively). Significant increase in the mean FIS scores was observed after recording impression in the Control group. Post-impression FIS showed significant positive correlation with GSI (Test: p = 0.003, Control: p = 0.009) and significant inverse correlation with GISS (Test: p = 0.003, Control: p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Interactive distraction technique used in this study is a simple, non-invasive and cost-effective method to effectively manage gagging and successfully record a maxillary impression in children between age 5 and 10 years.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of interactive distraction technique on the severity of gagging and success of impression taking in children between age 5 and 10 years. METHODS: This single blind, randomised controlled trial recruited 48 children aged 5-10 years requiring maxillary impressions. Selected children were randomly allocated to one of the two groups: (1) Test group, use of interactive distraction, and (2) Control group, no use of interactive distraction, during impression taking. Dental anxiety was scored using Facial Image Scale (FIS) before and after impression taking. Gagging-related Impression Success Scale (GISS) and Gagging Severity Index (GSI) were recorded by a blinded assessor. Nonparametric tests were used to compare the variables between the groups. RESULTS: Maxillary impressions were successfully recorded in all children in the Test group; either with no gag (87.5%) or with gag (12.5%). In 33.3% control children impressions could not be recorded. Statistically significant, strong association was found between the interactive distraction and GISS (p = 0.003, Cramer's V = 0.32). Mean GSI and post-impression FIS scores were significantly lesser in the Test group (p = 0.029 and p = 0.048, respectively). Significant increase in the mean FIS scores was observed after recording impression in the Control group. Post-impression FIS showed significant positive correlation with GSI (Test: p = 0.003, Control: p = 0.009) and significant inverse correlation with GISS (Test: p = 0.003, Control: p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Interactive distraction technique used in this study is a simple, non-invasive and cost-effective method to effectively manage gagging and successfully record a maxillary impression in children between age 5 and 10 years.