-
Study aim
-
comparing the results of three restorative techniques: stainless steel crown, atraumatic restorative treatment, Hall technique
-
Design
-
Groups: stainless steel crown, atraumatic restorative treatment, Hall technique
Computer-generated Individualized block-randomization was performed. Operator was blind to type of treatment until the presence of each patient
Treatment was performed parallel for groups
-
Settings and conduct
-
123 primary molars of patients (attending Mashhad faculty of dentistry) were randomly assigned to these groups:
Group1(Conventional SSC)
Group 2 (Hall technique)
Group 3 (Modified ART)
Recorded data: Duration of treatment,Pain and discomfort (child perception),Pain and anxiety ( dentist's perception),Parental satisfaction
The patients were re-examined 6 months and 1 year later. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were performed and the following data was recorded:Clinical sign of major and minor failure of the treatment. Radiographic signs of major or minor failure of the treatment. Parents' satisfaction , changes in canine relationship.
Data was analyzed using the Fisher’s exact test and chi-square test.The standard value of statistically significant difference was p≤0.05.
-
Participants/Inclusion and exclusion criteria
-
good general health, past history of restorative treatments including local anesthesia, high risk of caries incidence according to Guideline (AAPD), Written and verbal informed consents obtained from parents or guardians, children 4 to 9-year-old children having at least one multi-surface carious lesion of primary molar, affecting at least one interproximal surface of the tooth
-
Intervention groups
-
stainless steel crown, atraumatic restorative treatment, Hall technique
-
Main outcome variables
-
treatment type
Changes in inter-canine distance
Duration of treatment
Pain/discomfort (child perception)
Pain/anxiety ( dentist's perception)
Parental satisfaction