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 .
One-year evaluation of atraumatic restorative treatment and minimum intervention techniques on primary teeth.
Atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) and minimal intervention treatment ( MIT ) techniques were evaluated under field conditions in 5 regions of the Western Cape Province of South Africa , where caries prevalence exceeds 60 % and remains mostly untreated . The purpose of the study was to compare and evaluate results of  ART and MIT techniques in the primary dentition of 6 - 9 year-old schoolchildren using  glass-ionomer ( GI ) ( Fuji IX ) and compomer ( Dyract AP ) material s. At baseline 401 children were treated , and 1,119 restorations  placed by 5 calibrated dentists , 53 % with ART ( using h and instruments only ) and 47 % with MIT ( minimal use of slow h and -piece ) techniques . Evaluations were done with a CPI periodontal probe to measure marginal defects and to detect decay . A pain assessment for the restoration procedures indicated that 80 % of subjects experienced no pain , 18 % discomfort and slight pain , and 2 % required local anaesthetic . After one year 90.5 % of subjects and 80 % of restorations were followed up ( 11.1 % lost as a result of exfoliation ) ; of these restorations 86 % were clinical ly acceptable ( 84.1 % of the ART and 88 % of the MIT ) . With the art technique 82.7 % of GI restorations and 85.6 % , of compomer restorations were acceptable . With the MIT technique 86.5 % of GI restorations and 89.9 % of compomer restorations were acceptable . Success of restorations per region varied significantly : regions 1 and 2 - 90 % , region 3 - 80 % , region 4 - 70 % and region 5 - 95 % . There were no significant statistical differences in respect of material s or methods employed . ART and MIT techniques were well accepted as complementary caries approaches by operators . One-year results show that ART and MIT techniques were successful , substantiating its use for the primary dentition in areas with high caries prevalence . Longer-term assessment s are required
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 .