ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing number of studies evaluating patient reported outcome measures (PROs), there is no clearness regarding which restorative treatment offers major benefits based on the pediatric patient perspective. AIM: To compare different restorative techniques in pediatric dentistry regarding patient-reported outcomes. DESIGN: Literature searching was carried out on prospective studies indexed in PubMed, Scopus and OpenGrey. A Mixed Treatment Comparisons (MTC) meta-analysis was undertaken considering the results from reviewed studies. Anxiety, pain and quality of life were extracted as mean with standard deviation, percentage of pain, and mean difference of scores with standard deviation, respectively. For direct comparisons, data were combined using a random-effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic. For indirect comparisons, fixed and random effects were chosen through comparison of competing models based on the Deviance Information Criteria (DIC). The expected efficacy ranking based on the posterior probabilities of all treatment rankings was also calculated. RESULTS: An initial search resulted in 4,322 articles, of which 17 were finally selected. Due to unavailability of data, only pain, anxiety and oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL) were statistically analyzed. The difference in means (95% CI) of anxiety between treatments using only hand instruments with or without chemomechanical agents were -5.35 (-6.42 to -4.20) and -5.79 (-7.77 to -3.79) respectively when compared to conventional treatment using rotary instruments and/or local anesthesia. Regarding pain, there was a trend for treatments without rotary instruments and local anesthesia to be less frequently reported as painful. No statistical difference was found intragroup nor among treatments for OHRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety and pain are directly related with more invasive restorative treatments. On the other hand, quality of life is not improved regardless of the restorative technique used. Further well-designed prospective studies regarding PROs in children are still necessary.
Subject(s)
Anxiety/epidemiology , Dental Care for Children/methods , Dental Care/psychology , Pain/epidemiology , Anxiety/etiology , Child , Dental Care/instrumentation , Dental Care for Children/instrumentation , Humans , Network Meta-Analysis , Pain/etiology , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Quality of LifeSubject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Child, Preschool , Child , Clinical Competence/standards , Professional Competence/standards , Aptitude/physiology , Dental Care for Children/classification , Dental Care for Children/instrumentation , Dental Care for Children/methods , Dental Care for Children/psychology , Dental Care for Children , Child Health/psychology , Child DevelopmentSubject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Child, Preschool , Child , Critical Pathways/classification , Critical Pathways/standards , Critical Pathways/organization & administration , Dental Care for Children/instrumentation , Dental Care for Children/methods , Dental Care for Children/standards , Dental Care for Children/psychology , Dental Care for Children , Dental Offices/standards , Dental Offices/supply & distribution , Child Care/methods , Child Care/standards , Child Care/psychology , Child Care , Dental Auxiliaries , Relaxation TherapySubject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Infant , Child, Preschool , Child , Dental Care for Children/classification , Dental Care for Children/instrumentation , Dental Care for Children/methods , Dental Care for Children/standards , Dental Care for Children/psychology , Dental Care for Children , Appointments and Schedules , Child Behavior , Dentist-Patient Relations , Maternal Behavior , ParentsSubject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Infant , Child, Preschool , Child , Dental Care for Disabled , Preventive Dentistry , Patient Care Management/methods , Patient Care Management/standards , Dental Care for Children/instrumentation , Dental Care for Children/methods , Dental Care for Children/psychology , Child Behavior Disorders , Child Care/classification , Child Care/methods , Child Care/standards , Child Care/organization & administration , Child Care/supply & distribution , Dentist-Patient Relations , Disabled Children , Family RelationsSubject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Child, Preschool , Child , Diagnosis, Oral/methods , Pediatric Dentistry , Dental Care for Children/instrumentation , Dental Care for Children/methods , Dental Care for Children/psychology , Dental Care for Children , Child Behavior , Crying , Dentist-Patient Relations , Needs Assessment/standards , Physical Examination/classification , Physical Examination/methods , Habits , Oral Hygiene , Medical Records/standardsABSTRACT
Como no existe un material restaurador perfecto, necesitamos comparar las ventajas y desventajas de cada tipo de material y luego realizar la selección basada en las necesidades específicas de la situación. Es conocido que la amalgama por mucho tiempo ha sido duramente criticada, sin embargo no podemos olvidar nuestra realidad y la de muchos de nuestros pacientes, es por ello que, basados en lo estudiado por Mondelli, ponemos a consideración la técnica de la amalgama adhesiva como una alternativa restauradora en Odontopediatría. En este procedimiento se unen las propiedades de la amalgama y del cemento ionómero de vidrio lográndose así que la técnica brinde resultados óptimos en casos de niños con alto riesgo a caries dental
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Child, Preschool , Adolescent , Dental Bonding , Dental Amalgam/therapeutic use , Dental Care for Children/instrumentation , Dental Restoration, Permanent/methods , Tooth, Deciduous , Composite Resins/therapeutic use , Dental Caries/therapy , Glass Ionomer Cements/therapeutic use , Dental Cavity Preparation/methodsABSTRACT
Una actualización sobre biomateriales debe partir de los factores de éxito clínico: diagnóstico-material-técnica. En el caso de materiales que van a ser usados en la clínica odontopediátrica, hay ciertos puntos que deben ser tenidos en cuenta, como las diferencias anátomo-histológicas del sustrato, el tiempo disponible para llevar a cabo el tratamiento de acuerdo con la edad del paciente, las diferencias funcionales y la duración esperada en la restauración. Para ello es importante el conocimiento de las características de cada tipo de material, esto permitirá utilizarlos con la técnica adecuada que permita obtener lo mejor de sus propiedades y así aprovechar sus ventajas al máximo posible. En este trabajo se describen los materiales de uso más habitual en odontopediatría: ionómeros vítreos (convencionales e híbridos), composites (micropartículas, híbridos, condensables, inteligentes), compómeros. En cada caso, se describen sus características, indicaciones, manipulación, y adhesión
Subject(s)
Humans , Child , Dental Care for Children/instrumentation , Biocompatible Materials/therapeutic use , Glass Ionomer Cements/therapeutic use , Compomers/therapeutic use , Composite Resins/therapeutic use , Dental Bonding , Fluorides/chemistry , Dental Restoration, Permanent/instrumentationABSTRACT
Una actualización sobre biomateriales debe partir de los factores de éxito clínico: diagnóstico-material-técnica. En el caso de materiales que van a ser usados en la clínica odontopediátrica, hay ciertos puntos que deben ser tenidos en cuenta, como las diferencias anátomo-histológicas del sustrato, el tiempo disponible para llevar a cabo el tratamiento de acuerdo con la edad del paciente, las diferencias funcionales y la duración esperada en la restauración. Para ello es importante el conocimiento de las características de cada tipo de material, esto permitirá utilizarlos con la técnica adecuada que permita obtener lo mejor de sus propiedades y así aprovechar sus ventajas al máximo posible. En este trabajo se describen los materiales de uso más habitual en odontopediatría: ionómeros vítreos (convencionales e híbridos), composites (micropartículas, híbridos, condensables, inteligentes), compómeros. En cada caso, se describen sus características, indicaciones, manipulación, y adhesión (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Child , Biocompatible Materials/therapeutic use , Composite Resins/therapeutic use , Glass Ionomer Cements/therapeutic use , Compomers/therapeutic use , Dental Care for Children/instrumentation , Dental Bonding/methods , Dental Restoration, Permanent/instrumentation , Fluorides/chemistrySubject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Child, Preschool , Child , Health Education, Dental/classification , Health Education, Dental/methods , Dental Care for Children/classification , Dental Care for Children/instrumentation , Dental Care for Children/methods , Bicuspid/physiology , Dental Caries/etiology , Dental Caries/prevention & control , Cuspid/physiology , Dental Arch/physiology , Dental Devices, Home Care/classification , Dental Devices, Home Care/standards , Dentifrices/classification , Dentifrices/pharmacology , Dentition, Permanent , Toothbrushing/classification , Toothbrushing/instrumentation , Toothbrushing/methods , Gingiva/physiology , Gingiva/physiopathology , Incisor/physiology , Molar/physiology , Oral Hygiene , Oral Hygiene/classification , Oral Hygiene/instrumentation , Dental Plaque/etiology , Dental Plaque/prevention & control , Dental Restoration, Temporary/classification , Dental Restoration, Temporary/methods , Tooth, DeciduousABSTRACT
Visando a melhoria das condições de atendimento a indivíduos com menos de 24 meses foi desenvolvido um dispositivo para isolamento relativo da região antero-superior propiciando melhor atendimento nos tratamentos realizados. Este dispositivo é confeccionado em silicone e posssui uma utilização bastante diversificada