http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0048-2068
Figures
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.
Citation: Ladewig NM, Tedesco TK, Gimenez T, Braga MM, Raggio DP (2018) Patient-reported outcomes associated with different restorative techniques in pediatric dentistry: A systematic review and MTC meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 13(12): e0208437. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208437
Editor: Nagendra Kumar Kaushik, Kwangwoon University, REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Received: May 14, 2018; Accepted: November 17, 2018; Published: December 6, 2018
Copyright: © 2018 Ladewig et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All data collection files are available from the Mendeley Data database: http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/47x4scy37y.1.
Funding: São Paulo Research Foundation — FAPESP (grant #2015/11356–6) granted Nathalia de Miranda Ladewig with a PhD scholarship. Daniela Prócida Raggio is a recipient of the Research Productivity Scholarship – CNPq (303109/2012-2).
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Patient-reported outcome (PRO) is an assessment of health status reported by the patients themselves instead of being interpreted by an observer[1]. Although physical, physiological and biomechanical data may be measured through medical examination, there is some information that can only be obtained from the patient, such as symptoms, feelings and disease’s impact[2]. The utilization of PRO in health care is an emerging metric that is becoming increasingly important[3–5]. It is considered an essential component in the provision of health care and ensures patient’s voice and his engagement in medical decision-making[6]. In the field of pediatric dentistry, this takes a major role because negative dental experiences during childhood and adolescence reverberate in adulthood, presenting a long-term effect[7].
As restorative care is a fundamental part of the comprehensive oral health treatment of children[8], it has been more extensively studied regarding PROs. The traditional clinical parameters to assess restorative treatments, such as marginal integrity and wear surface of restorations, secondary caries, and pulp inflammation[9], have been complemented by patient-based outcomes as quality of life[10,11], anxiety[12–13], children and parental perception[14] and pain[14–18].
Recent studies have been focusing on patient-based outcomes measured not only by psychometric scales[19–21] but also physiological rates or under the health professional perspective[19]. However, the published data presents conflicting results and inconclusive findings, with no clearness regarding which restorative treatment offers major benefits based on the patient perspective. In this context, the aim of this systematic review is to compare different restorative techniques in pediatric dentistry regarding patient-reported outcomes.
Material and methods
This systematic review was reported according to PRISMA guidelines[22] as detailed in Supporting Information section. A review protocol was recorded at PROSPERO database under the registration number CRD42017056285.
Literature search
The literature search on MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus and OpenGrey was performed until February 2018. A search strategy was developed for MEDLINE (PubMed) and then suited to the other two databases (Table 1). Three groups of words combined with the boolean term ‘OR’ were created, including key words for primary teeth, restorative treatment and patient-based outcome. The three groups were combined with the boolean term ‘AND’. Both Text Word and Mesh Terms were used. Hand searching was performed on reference lists of full-text read articles and no languages restrictions were applied.
Selection criteria
Eligible studies in this systematic review included prospective studies assessing dental restorative treatment in the primary dentition. The lack of a comparison group and patient-reported outcomes as well as studies performed in groups with specific conditions different from normality and studies in which primary and permanent dentition data were not analyzed separately were excluded. As patient-reported outcomes we consider all assessments that are reported by the patient according to the CONSORT PRO Extension[1]. In addition, the proxy-reported outcome Oral Health Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) was also appraised.
Review methods
Titles and abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers (N.M.L and T.K.T.). If the study met the inclusion criteria or if there were insufficient data available, full-text articles were obtained for further assessment by the same reviewers. Cohen Kappa test was performed to ensure their inter-rater reliability before both phases using 10% of the search sample. Disagreements were discussed with an expert (D.P.R.) to reach consensus.
Data extraction and processing
Relevant data were collected using a structured data extraction form. Author, publication year, country, study location and design were extracted to describe the studies. Sample size, age of participants, group of teeth treated and sample size according to the treatment were collected to characterize the sample. Regarding the results, operator, outcome, evaluation criteria, time of evaluation and main findings were extracted. Authors of included studies were contacted to provide additional data when needed.
The treatments compared among the studies were categorized in six groups according to the characteristics described: I- Restorative treatment using rotary instruments and local anesthesia (BUR+LA); II- Restorative treatment using rotary instruments (BUR); III- Restorative treatment using hand instruments and adhesive material (HI); IV- Restorative treatment using chemomechanical agents (CHM); V- Hall Technique (HT); VI- Ultraconservative restorative treatment (UCT).
Studies’ quality was assessed by two reviewers (N.M.L and T.K.T) independently. The Cochrane Collaboration Tool was used to appraise all studies included. Each study was evaluated as low, high or unclear risk of bias according to the randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other potential bias. Authors were contacted via e-mail for missing or unclear information. Disagreements between the reviewers were solved by consensus.
Publication bias would be assessed if more than 10 studies were identified, since power is low otherwise [23].
Statistical analysis
The three outcomes quantitatively evaluated in the meta-analysis were considered as continuous variables and treated according to the measures available in each article. Mean with standard deviation, percentage of pain, and mean difference of scores with standard deviation were extracted to evaluate anxiety, pain and quality of life respectively. The coefficients reported in the meta-analysis were difference in means with 95% confidence interval (95%CI) for anxiety and quality of life and risk relative (RR) with 95%CI for pain.
The effects of each treatment for dental caries in primary teeth on patient-reported outcomes were analyzed using a Mixed Treatment Comparisons (MTC) meta-analysis. The MTC combines direct and indirect comparisons across a range of competing interventions by including multiple distinct pairwise data. It also allows the calculation of treatment ranking probabilities regarding their efficacy[24]. As MTC is based on Bayesian hierarchical framework, the estimates were obtained by Markov-Chain Monte Carlo simulations. All analysis was performed in the R statistical software using the GeMTC package version 0.8 and the rJAGSpackage to estimate the models.
For direct comparisons, data were combined using a random-effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic when more than one study compared the same treatments regarding the same outcome.
For indirect comparisons, the choice between fixed and random effects was made through the comparison of competing models based on the Deviance Information Criteria (DIC). For each model, goodness-of-fit to data was evaluated using residual deviance[25]. Vague prior distributions were used for all models. The expect ranking of efficacy for all treatments based on the posterior probabilities of all treatment rankings[26] was also calculated. Node split analysis for inconsistency was not performed because most part of the treatments did not present direct comparisons.
Results
In total, 4,322 studies were identified through the search strategy of which 3,800 were non-duplicated. The inter-rater reliability was 0.79 for abstract inclusion and 1.0 for full-text exclusion. After screening titles and abstracts, 263 papers were retrieved for full-text evaluation. The main reason for excluding studies was the absence of patient-reported outcome measures (n = 79). A final number of 17 papers met the eligibility criteria (Fig 1). From those, eight different patient-reported outcomes were identified as following: pain (n = 7), discomfort (n = 2), treatment preference (n = 1), anxiety (n = 6), quality of life related to oral health (n = 2), satisfaction (n = 3), willingness to receive the treatment again (n = 1) and appearance (n = 1). Some papers reported more than one outcome (Table 2).
All studies except three, which was a prospective PRO study, a mixed-method study and an analytical cross-sectional study, were randomized clinical trials (RCT). Treatments were only performed in posterior teeth.
Risk of bias assessment
The assessment of the risk of bias for the included studies is displayed in Fig 2. None of the categories was classified as low risk for all the studies. Most of them did not report enough data regarding allocation concealment and blinding of participants, operators and evaluators. Reporting, attrition and selecting bias were the most frequent available low-risk bias information.
Mixed treatment comparisons
Due to the unavailability of data regarding the same outcome, only pain, anxiety and oral health related quality of life were statistically analyzed.
Anxiety.
From the six studies assessing anxiety, three of them presented comparable data. The Venham Picture Test was used as the evaluation tool by two studies while the Child’s Fear Survey Schedule, by the remaining one. The treatments compared were restorative treatment using rotary instruments and local anesthesia (BUR+LA), restorative treatment using rotary instruments (BUR), restorative treatment using hand instruments and adhesive materials (HI), and restorative treatment using chemomechanical agents (CHM). The mean and standard deviations were used to perform the MTC meta-analysis. Treatments (BUR+LA) and (BUR) were merged and analyzed as the same group (BUR+LA). Direct comparison was possible between treatments (BUR+LA) and (HI) as well as (HI) and (CHM) as illustrated in Fig 3A. Treatments (BUR+LA) and (CHM) were compared indirectly using a fixed effects model.
The width of lines connecting each pair of treatment is proportional to the number of studies regarding anxiety (A), quality of life (B) and pain (C).
The results of the MTC meta-analysis are summarized in Table 3. Regarding anxiety, the indirect comparison identified a significant difference between treatments using rotary instruments with or without local anesthesia (BUR+LA) and chemomechanical agents (CHM). It also indicated a better performance of treatments using hand instruments and adhesive materials (HI) compared to (BUR+LA). The difference between (HI) and (CHM) were not confirmed in this model.
Table 4 presents the ranking of treatments according to their probability of being the best choice. The order of the probability of less-anxiety provoking treatments was restorative treatment using chemomechanical agents (CHM), restorative treatment using hand instruments and adhesive material (HI) and rotary instruments with or without local anesthesia (BUR+LA). The probability of treatment (BUR+LA) be the worse treatment regarding anxiety was approximately 97%.
Oral health related to quality of life.
From the two studies evaluating the Oral Health Related to Quality of Life (OHRQoL), both of them used the Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale (ECOHIS) questionnaire. The treatments compared were restorative treatment using rotary instruments and local anesthesia (BUR+LA), restorative treatment using rotary instruments (BUR), restorative treatment using hand instruments and adhesive material (HI), and ultraconservative restorative treatment (UCT) as demonstrated in Fig 3B. The mean difference of OHRQoL scores after and before treatment and the standard deviation were used to perform the MTC meta-analysis. Direct comparison was possible between treatments (BUR+LA) and (BUR), (BUR) and (HI), (BUR) and (UCT), and (HI) and (UCT). Treatments (BUR+LA) and (HI) as well as (BUR+LA) and (UCT) were indirectly compared using a fixed effects model.
Regarding the improvement in the OHRQoL, no statistical difference was observed intragroup nor among treatments. The significant difference reported in the studies whose values did not overcome 1 was lost after performing the MTC meta-analysis.
In relation to the ranking probability of OHRQoL improvement (Table 5), treatment (UCT) was ranked in the first position even though no restorative material is used to fill the cavities in this technique. It would be followed by (BUR), (HI) and (BUR+LA). The last one presented approximately 70% of chance to be the least effective.
Pain.
From the seven studies assessing pain, six of them presented enough data for a quantitative analysis. Regarding the evaluation criteria, two studies used a yes/no question, two of them applied the Wong-Baker facial scale and two studies used the Visual Analogue Pain Scale. Both scales are 5-point measurements whose results were dichotomized as presence and absence of pain. The treatments compared were restorative treatment using rotary instruments and local anesthesia (BUR+LA), restorative treatment using rotary instruments (BUR), restorative treatment using hand instruments and adhesive material (HI), restorative treatment using chemomechanical agents (CHM), hall technique (HT) and ultraconservative restorative treatment (UCT). The relative risk (RR) was calculated using the percentage of pain reported for each treatment. The direct comparisons are illustrated in Fig 3C. The remaining comparisons were performed indirectly using a fixed effects model. There was only one study per pair of comparison. No statistical difference was found between treatments.
In relation to the ranking probability regarding pain, treatment (CHM) would be ranked as the low painful treatment while treatment (HT) would be the most painful (Table 6). However, the probabilities are low, 58% and 39% respectively.
A direct meta-analysis was additionally performed after dichotomizing the groups in treatments using rotary instruments and local anesthesia versus treatment without the use of rotary instruments or local anesthesia (Fig 4). From the 7 studies included in the quantitative analysis, only 4 compared dichotomized groups. High heterogeneity was found (I = 74%, 95%CI 27.6%; 90.7%), thus the random model was considered the best choice. Although no association was found using the random model, it seems to be a trend for treatments without rotary instruments and local anesthesia to be less reported as painful.
Discussion
Despite the historical limited development and utilization of patient-reported outcome (PROs) in clinical dentistry, some important steps have been taken to report data regarding PROs[35]. This evolution seems logic considering that unpleasant dental experiences have a large range of consequences since patient apprehension[36] until dental treatment avoidance[37]. Regarding the young population, children aging 3 years and older are able to effectively communicate emotional and physical experiences despite the clear differences in their developmental skills[38] which enable them to participate in the decision-making process. In this context, it is clear to understand why the sample of all included studies were composed by children from 3 years old and up even though no age-related exclusion criteria were applied. Considering the availability of evidence-based restorative treatment options[39] and the shorter lifetime of the primary dentition, choosing a patient-friendly treatment may be the key for a successful dental management of this population.
Studies have demonstrated that there is a weak to moderate agreement between professional and children regarding some patient-based outcomes, such as pain and anxiety[40–41] and a moderate concordance between parents and children[42]. Hence, clinical observation or parents-reported measures are considered unreliable methods[43–44]. On the other hand, valid and trustworthy information can be obtained from both parents and children when measuring OHRQoL[45]. This justifies the exclusive use of patient-reported studies, excepting those regarding OHRQoL, in this systematic review.
Unfortunately, the increasing number of studies did not imply in strong and conclusive evidence. The risk of bias assessment demonstrated the lack of rigor in the publications reporting patient outcomes measures. In most of the clinical studies, it lacks information about allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessment, parameters which could greatly influence a self-reported outcome.
The great variability of treatments and measurements regarding the same outcome limited to merger the data. Therefore, it was not possible to fully perform the MTC, since there was no direct and indirect evidence for pairwise comparison of neither outcome. However, the MTC still contributed significantly with the results, as not only increased the possibilities of comparisons among treatments for all three outcomes, but it also detected differences that had not been observed in the direct analysis of anxiety. Children reported significant higher levels of anxiety when treatments using local anesthesia and rotary instruments were performed. This result does not corroborate with a recent systematic review which demonstrated that there is no difference between ART and conventional treatment regarding this outcome[19]. However, this study only performed direct comparisons which is not enough to detect this difference with the current scientific data available.
The higher levels of anxiety related to conventional restorative procedures can be explained by the use of high-speed handpiece with or without needle/anesthesia (BUR+LAR) which are triggering factors often related to adverse emotional reactions in children in the dental office[46]. In this context, less invasive treatments such as ART (HI) can be indicated as first choice treatment because it does not require the use of these devices[47].
Regarding pain, when dichotomizing treatments between those that use or do not use rotary instruments and local anesthesia, a trend in favor of procedures that do not use these devices was found. However, it was observed through the Forest Plot that the studies showing a protective effect have smaller sample sizes. Due to the clinical heterogeneity of pain, it is possible that the protective effect is attenuated in larger studies.
On the other hand, some results regarding both pain and quality of life that had presented statistical difference in the direct analysis lost the significance in the indirect comparisons. This may represent only a statistical effect, since indirect analysis enlarge the confidence interval as a result of the mathematical modeling[24]. However, it may also be related to the impossibility of generalizing the studies’ findings. The few data available are insufficient to come to a conclusion about this divergence.
There is an evident need for high-quality prospective PRO studies in restorative pediatric dentistry. Randomized clinical trials using PRO as primary outcomes after performing an appropriate and powerful sample size calculation could bring important contributions to the current scientific literature. Yet, following a protocol for reporting PRO[1] may improve the quality of data produced. Based on the current evidence, we can conclude that anxiety and pain are directly related with more invasive restorative treatments. On the other hand, quality of life is not improved regardless the type of restorative treatment. Further well-designed prospective studies regarding PROs in children are still necessary.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the São Paulo Research Foundation—FAPESP (grant #2015/11356–6) and CNPq for financial support. Daniela Prócida Raggio is a recipient of the Research Productivity Scholarship–CNPq (303109/2012-2). We also acknowledge all participants in the postgraduate Paediatric Dentistry Seminar and in the Implementation of Scientific Evidence: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis course of FOUSP (Faculty of Dentistry, University of São Paulo) for the constructive criticism provided.
References
- 1. Calvert M, Blazeby J, Altman DG, Revicki DA, Moher D, Brundage MD et al. Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA 2013;309(8):814–22. pmid:23443445
- 2. Deshpande PR, Rajan S, Sudeepthi BL, Abdul Nazir CP. Patient-reported outcomes: A new era in clinical research. Perspectives in Clinical Research. 2011;2(4):137–144. pmid:22145124
- 3. Cano SJ, Browne JP, Lamping DL. Patient-based measures of outcome in plastic surgery: current approaches and future directions. Br J Plast Surg 2004;57(1):1–11. pmid:14672672
- 4. Cano SJ, Klassen A, Pusic AL. The science behind quality-of-life measurement: a primer for plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstruct Surg 2009;123(3):98e–106e.
- 5. Fleming PS, Koletsi D, O’Brien K, Tsichlaki A, Pandis N. Are dental researchers asking patient-important questions? A scoping review. J Dent. 2016;49:9–13. pmid:27068159
- 6. Noonan VK, Lyddiatt A, Ware P, Jaglal SB, Riopelle RJ, Bingham CO 3rd, et al. Montreal Accord on patient-reported outcomes use series-paper 3: patient-reported outcomes can facilitate shared decision-making and guide self-management. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017: S0895-4356(17)30413-4.
- 7. Thomson WM, Broadbent JM, Locker D, Poulton R. Trajectories of dental anxiety in a birth cohort. Comunity Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2009; 37:209–219.
- 8. Dhar V, Hsu KL, Coll JA, Ginsberg E, Ball BM Chhibber S, et al. Evidence-based update of pediatric dental restoration procedures: dental materials. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 2015; 39(4): 303–10. pmid:26161599
- 9. Roeleveld AC, Van Amerongen WE, Mandari GJ. Influence of residual caries and cervical gaps on the survival rate of Class II glass ionomer restorations. Eur. Arch. Paediatr. Dent. 2006; 7(2): 85–91. pmid:17140533
- 10. Leal SC, Bronkhorst EM, Fan M, Frencken JE. Effect of different protocols for treating cavities in primary molars on the quality of life of children in Brazil—1 year follow-up. Int Dent J. 2013;63(6):329–35. pmid:24716248
- 11. Arrow P, Klobas E. Child oral health-related quality of life and early childhood caries: a non-inferiority randomized control trial. Aust Dent J. 2016;61(2):227–35. pmid:26250076
- 12. Mickenautsch S, Frencken JE, van’t HM. Atraumatic restorative treatment and dental anxiety in outpatients attending public oral health clinics in South Africa. J Public Health Dent. 2007;67(3):179–84. pmid:17899905
- 13. Topaloglu-Ak A, Eden E, Frencken JE. Perceived dental anxiety among schoolchildren treated through three caries removal approaches. J Appl Oral Sci. 2007;15(3):235–40. pmid:19089136
- 14. Santamaria RM, Innes NP, Machiulskiene V, Evans DJ, Alkilzy M, Splieth CH. Acceptability of different caries management methods for primary molars in a RCT. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2015;25(1):9–17. pmid:24602167
- 15. Louw AJ, Sarvan I, Chikte UM, Honkala E. One-year evaluation of atraumatic restorative treatment and minimum intervention techniques on primary teeth. SADJ. 2002;57(9):366–71. pmid:12494713
- 16. de Menezes Abreu DM, Leal SC, Frencken JE. Self-report of pain in children treated according to the atraumatic restorative treatment and the conventional restorative treatment—a pilot study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2009;34(2):151–5. pmid:20297707
- 17. Aguilar AA, Rios Caro TE, Huamán Saavedra J, França CM, Fernandes KP, Mesquita-Ferrari RA, et al. Atraumatic restorative treatment: a dental alternative well-received by children. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2012;31(2):148–52. pmid:22522878
- 18. Luz PB, Barata JS, Meller CR, Slavutsky SMB, de Araujo FB. ART acceptability in children: a randomized clinical trial. Rev Fac Odontol. Porto Alegre. 2012;53(1):27–31.
- 19. Simon AK, Bhumika TV, Nair NS. Does atraumatic restorative treatment reduce dental anxiety in children? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Dent. 2015;9(2):304–9. pmid:26038668
- 20. Hesse D, de Araujo MP, Olegário IC, Innes N, Raggio DP, Bonifácio CC. Atraumatic Restorative Treatment compared to the Hall Technique for occluso-proximal cavities in primary molars: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17:169. pmid:27029801
- 21. Ladewig NM, Sahiara CS, Yoshioka L, Olegário IC, Floriano I, Tedesco TK, et al. Efficacy of conventional treatment with composite resin and atraumatic restorative treatment in posterior primary teeth: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2017;10:7(7):e015542. pmid:28698331
- 22. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7): e1000100. pmid:19621070
- 23. Sterne JA, Gavaghan D, Egger M. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(11):1119–29. pmid:11106885
- 24. Jansen JP, Crawford B, Bergman G, Stam W. Bayesian meta-analysis of multiple treatment comparisons: an introduction to mixed treatment comparisons. Value Health. 2008;11(5):956–64. pmid:18489499
- 25. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, van der Linde A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Statistical Methodol). 2002;64:583–639.
- 26. Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, et al. Interpreting Indirect Treatment Comparisons and Network Meta-Analysis for Health-Care Decision Making: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: Part 1. Value Heal. 2011;14:417–428.
- 27. van Bochove JA, van Amerongen WE. The influence of restorative treatment approaches and the use of local analgesia, on the children’s discomfort. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2006 Mar;7(1):11–6. pmid:17140522
- 28. Innes NP, Evans DJ, Stirrups DR. The Hall Technique; a randomized controlled clinical trial of a novel method of managing carious primary molars in general dental practice: acceptability of the technique and outcomes at 23 months. BMC Oral Health. 2007;7:18. pmid:18096042
- 29. Mustafa O, Parekh S, Ashley P, Anand P. Post-operative pain and anxiety related to dental procedures in children. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2013;14(4):289–94. pmid:24313580
- 30. Arrow P, Klobas E. Minimal intervention dentistry for early childhood caries and child dental anxiety: a randomized controlled trial. Aust Dent J. 2017;62(2):200–207. pmid:27878824
- 31. Maciel R, Salvador D, Azoubel K, Redivivo R, Maciel C, da Franca C, et al. The opinion of children and their parents about four different types of dental restorations in a public health service in Brazil. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2017;18(1):25–29. pmid:28044248
- 32. Lakshmi SP, Sahana S, Vasa AAK, Madu GP, Bezawada S, Deepika M. Atraumatic restorative treatment vs. Hall technique for occlusoproximal lesions in primary dentition-an in vivo study. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 2018;12(2):ZC09–ZC13.
- 33. Barreto KA, dos Prazeres LDKT, Lima DSM, Redivivo RMMP, Colares V. Children’s anxiety during dental treatment with minimally invasive approaches: Findings of an analytical cross-sectional study. Brazilian Rsearch in Pediatric Dentistry and Integrated Clinic 2017;17(1):e3146.
- 34. Tavares RNM, Zanin L, Flório FM. Pain and anxiety in children receiving atraumatic and conventional restorative dental treatment: a randomized clinical study. Bioscience Journal 2018;34(1):251–259.
- 35. Rosen EB, Donoff RB, Riedy CA. U.S. Dental School Deans’ Views on the Value of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Dentistry. J Dent Educ. 2016 Jun;80(6):721–5. pmid:27251354.
- 36. Banerjee A, Watson TF, Kidd EA. Dentine caries excavation: A review of current clinical techniques. Br Dent J. 2000;188:476–82. pmid:10859846
- 37. Cohen SM, Fiske J, Newton JT. The impact of dental anxiety on daily living. Br Dent J. 2000; 189:385–390. pmid:11081950
- 38. Woolley ME, Bowen GL, Bowen NK. Cognitive pretesting and the developmental validity of child self-report instruments: theory and applications. Res Soc Work Pract. 2004;14:191–200. pmid:21709820
- 39. Tedesco TK, Calvo AF, Lenzi TL, Hesse D, Guglielmi CA, Camargo LB, et al. ART is an alternative for restoring occlusoproximal cavities in primary teeth—evidence from an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2017;27(3):201–209. pmid:27489205
- 40. Buchanan H, Niven N. Further evidence for the validity of the Facial Image Scale. Inter J of Paediatr Dent. 2003;13:368–369.
- 41. Barros L, Buchanan H. Correspondence between dentist and child ratings of dental anxiety in Portugal: a preliminary study. Rev Port Estomatol Med Dent Cir Maxilofac. 2011;52:13–15.
- 42. Gustafsson A, Arnrup K, Broberg AG, Bodin L, Berggren U. Child dental fear as measured with the Dental Subscale of the Children’s Fear Survey Schedule: the impact of referral status and type of informant (child versus parent). Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2010;38(3):256–266. pmid:20074292
- 43. Luoto A, Tolvanen M, Rantavuori K, Pohjola V, Lahti S. Can parents and children evaluate each other’s dental fear? Eur J Oral Sci. 2010;118(3):254–8. pmid:20572858
- 44. Porrit J, Buchanan H, Hall M, Gilchrist F, Marshman Z. Assessing children’s dental anxiety: a systematic review of current measures. Community Den Oral Epidemiol. 2013;41(2):130–42.
- 45. Barbosa TS, Gavião MB. Oral health-related quality of life in children: part III. Is there agreement between parents in rating their children’s oral health-related quality of life? A systematic review. Int J Dent Hyg. 2008;6(2):108–13. pmid:18412722
- 46. Walsh LJ. Anxiety prevention: implementing the 4 S principle in conservative dentistry. Auxilliary. 2007;17:24–6.
- 47. Frencken JE, Pilot T, Songpaisan Y, Phantumvait P. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): Rationale, technique, and development. Journal of Public Health Dentistry. 1996; 56(3): 135–140.