Effect of different protocols for treating cavities in primary molars on the quality of life of children in Brazil – 1 year follow-up

Abstract

The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that the conventional restorative treatment (CRT) and the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) protocols, in comparison with the ultra-conservative treatment (UCT) protocol, would increase the quality of life of children over a period of 1 year. Cavitated primary molars of 302 children 6-7 years of age were treated according to the CRT, ART and UCT protocols at the school compound. Children's parents completed the Brazilian version of the Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale (B-ECOHIS) at baseline and one year later. Paired t-test, Chi-square test and ANOVA were applied in analysing the data. Questionnaires from 277 and 160 children were collected at baseline and after 1 year, respectively. A statistically significant difference in B-ECOHIS scores over the 1-year period was found for domains 'child symptoms' (P = 0.03) and 'child psychology' (P = 0.02). Treatment protocols did not statistically significantly influence the changes in B-ECOHIS scores over the 1-year period (P = 0.78). It can be concluded that the UCT protocol was as good as the two restorative protocols. All treatment protocols were effective in reducing children's experience of pain, their sleeping problems and their irritability and/or frustration levels over the 1-year period.

Responsiveness and sensitivity of the Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale to primary dental care for early childhood caries

“…The effect sizes in this study were smaller than those reported in studies of children treated under GA (14,16). However, the effect sizes were similar to the calculated effect sizes obtained after dental treatment among 6-to 7-year-old children in Brazil (0.21 child symptom and 0.21 child psychology domains) (17), and to effect sizes reported for treatment in primary care settings among older children, and using the Child Perception Questionnaire as a measure of COHRQoL (0.1 overall) (20). It is possible that effect sizes may be muted where care is delivered over a longer time frame and in which the effects are felt gradually over time, rather than immediately, as happens with GA care.…”

“…The authors reported pre‐ and post‐treatment ECOHIS scores among the three groups and determined that all three approaches were equally effective because there was no statistically significant difference in COHRQoL between the approaches. However, overall COHRQoL at follow‐up was no different to pre‐treatment scores .…”

Atraumatic Restorative Treatment compared to the Hall Technique for occluso-proximal cavities in primary molars: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

“…With regards to dental caries, most research has been published on the impact of the disease and its consequences and little on the consequences of providing curative care on the population’s quality of life. There have been some investigations of changes in OHRQoL associated with ART [ 37 , 53 ]. However, to date, no research has been carried out to investigate the OHRQoL associated with the use of the HT.…”

Impact of a dental care program on the quality of life of children with and without caries

“…6,7,8,12,13,14,21,24 Moreover, our results bring new evidence of the long-term effects of caries treatment on the OHRQoL of schoolchildren aged 8 to 10 years. Although other studies have demonstrated improvements in children's OHRQoL after dental treatment, they generally have focused on outcomes in younger children using the Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale (ECOHIS), Child-Oral Impacts on Daily Performances (Child-OIDP), the Parental-Caregivers Perception Questionnaire (P-CPQ), 17,25,26,27 and research in which treatment was proposed for early childhood caries under general anesthesia. 12,28,29 In relation to CPQ instruments, Turton et al 30 evaluate the responsiveness of the Khmer version of the CPQ [11][12][13][14] in 140 children aged 8 to 14 years who received basic dental care from a local nongovernmental organization over a 6-month period.…”