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 h and , quality of life is not improved regardless of the restorative technique used .
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 .
Influence of residual caries and cervical gaps on the survival rate of class II glass ionomer restorations
Aim : To assess the influence of different variables on the survival of class II glass ionomer cements ( GIC ) in a clinical study among 6–7 year old schoolchildren in and around Dar es Salaam , Tanzania . Methods : 217 children were r and omly divided into three groups . In the conventional group , Class-II cavities were excavated with burs , in the ART group they were excavated with h and instruments and in the Carisolv ™ group excavation took place with a chemical solution and special blunt h and instruments . The preparations in all groups were restored with h and mixed GIC ( Fuji IX ) by 4 operators . After restoration , residual caries and cervical gaps were assessed on bite-wing radiographs . The quality of the restorations was established and the survival rate determined in two subsequent evaluations . Results : 195 children ( 90 % ) were present at the first evaluation which took place after 7 months and 194 ( 89 % ) were present at the second evaluation , after one year . At the first evaluation the survival rate of the ART-restorations  was 38 % , of the conventional restorations 50 % , and of the Carisolv ™ restorations  35 % . Survival rates at the time of the second evaluation were 30 % , 42 % and 28 % respectively . The differences between the three treatment groups were , however , not significant ( p=0.200 at t=1 and p=0.247 at t=2 ) . In the first evaluation 161 bitewings were available of the 195 restorations , while for the second evaluation 130 . There was no significant relation between residual caries and the success/failure rate ( p=0.140 at t=1 and p=0.201 at t=2 ) . Also , cervical gaps appeared to have no relation with the failure rate ( p=0.057 at t=1 and p=0.833 at t=2 ) However , together those variables have a significant influence on the survival rate ( p = 0.025 ) . Conclusion : The combination of two variables ( residual caries and cervical gaps ) has considerable influence on the survival rate of class II GIC restorations compared to each variable alone
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 h and , quality of life is not improved regardless of the restorative technique used .
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 .