Background: The prevalence of proximal caries in primary molar teeth is high in many countries. Aims: (1) To study by means of a split-mouth design the 1- and 2.5-year efficacy of sealing proximal lesions vs. flossing instructions (control) on primary molar teeth. (2) To assess children’s behaviour and pain perception during the procedure. Methods: Ninety-one 4- to 6-year-old children from Bogotá, Colombia participated. Participants had to have at least two proximal lesions scored according to the following radiographic classification system: radiolucency (1) in enamel outer half, (2) restricted to enamel-dentine junction, or (3) restricted to dentine outer third. Baseline, 1- and 2.5-year follow-up bitewing radiographs were taken. Test and control lesions were randomly selected. After temporary separation test lesions were sealed (adhesive). Parents/caregivers received a flossing leaflet for their children. Progression of the lesions was assessed by means of independent reading of conventional bitewing radiographs. Results: One-year (n = 73) test vs. control lesion progression was 27.4 vs. 50.7%, respectively (p < 0.01, McNemar’s test), and 2.5-year (n = 56) test vs. control lesion progression was 46.4 vs. 71.4%, respectively (p < 0.01). The dropouts did not differ from those who remained in the study regarding relevant caries baseline data. More than 88% of the participants presented positive to definitively positive behaviour and very low or low pain intensity at both first and second appointments. Conclusion: The sealing technique was superior to flossing instructions both after 1 and 2.5 years of follow-up and the majority of the participants had no anxiety or pain during the treatment.

Keywords:
Children’s behaviour, Distal caries lesions, Pain perception, Preschoolers, Primary molars, Proximal sealing, Radiographic progression
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
2010
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.