Self–Report of Pain in Children Treated According to the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment and the Conventional Restorative Treatment – A Pilot Study

Objective: To compare the level of pain among children treated according to the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) and the Conventional Restorative Treatment (CRT). Study design: Forty children of both genders, 4-to 7-years old, presenting Class I cavitated dentin lesions in primary molars were randomly allocated to 2 groups. One group (CRT) received conventional restorative treatment using rotary instruments,while in the other one (ART) hand instruments were used to perform the restorations. All children were treated by the same operator. A high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (Fuji IX) was used to restore the teeth in both groups. Children's pain was measured at the end of the first restorative treatment session using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale (dependent variable). Age, gender, treatment time and treatment group were independent variables. ANOVA and ANCOVA tests were used to analyze the data. Results: The CRT procedure took longer than the ART procedure (p<0.001). Children from the ART group reported less pain than those from the CRT group (p=0.0037). Four year olds reported more pain than 5-to 7-year olds(p<0.0001) in both groups. Conclusions: Restorations placed using ART were less time consuming, children felt less pain when the ART approach was used, and younger children (4-years) reported more pain than the older ones for both restorative treatments.

Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART), faces scale, pain

1. IASP Pain Terminology. The IASP page. Available at “http://www.iasp-pain.org,” Accessed December 22, 2008.

2. Kaufman E, Epstein JB, Naveh E, Gorsky M, Gross A, Cohen G. A sur-vey of pain, pressure, and discomfort induced by commonly used oral local anesthesia injections. Anesth Prog, 52: 122–7, 2005.

3. Milgrom P, Coldwell SE, Getz T, Weinstein P, Ramsay DS. Four dimensions of fear and dental injections. J Am Dent Assoc, 128: 756–66, 1997.

4. Rahimtoola S, van Amerongen WE, Maher R, Groen H. Pain related to different ways of minimal intervention in the treatment of small caries lesions. ASDC J Dent Child, 67: 123–7, 83, 2000.

5. Mickenautsch S. An Introduction to Minimum Intervention Dentistry. Singapore Dent J, 27: 1–6, 2005.

6. Frencken JE, van Amerongen WE. The atraumatic restorative treatment approach. In: Fejerskov and Kidd (eds), Dental caries. The Disease and its Clinical Management. 2nd ed, Blackwell Munksgaard Ltd, Oxford, UK, 2008.

7. Cole BO, Welbury RR. The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique: does it have a place in everyday practice? Dent Update, 27: 118–20, 122–3, 2000.

8. van Amerongen WE, Rahimtoola S. Is ART really atraumatic? Com-munity Dent Oral Epidemiol, 27: 431–5, 1999.

9. Rahimtoola S, van Amerongen WE. Comparison of two tooth-saving preparation techniques for one-surface cavities. ASDC J Dent Child, 69: 16–26, 11, 2002.

10. Schriks MCM, van Amerongen WE. Atraumatic perspectives of ART: psychological and physiological aspects of treatment with and without rotary instruments. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol, 31: 15–20, 2003.

11. Frencken JE, Holmgren CJ. ART: a minimal intervention approach to manage dental caries. Dent Update, 31: 295–8, 301, 2004.

12. Smales RJ, Yip HK. The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach for primary teeth: review of literature. Pediatr Dent, 22: 294–8, 2000.

13. Lin XP, Guo L, An LX. The clinical effect of ART and psychological guidance in treatment of carious deciduous teeth in preschool children. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue, 12: 313–4, 2003.

14. Venham L, Bengston D, Cipes M. Children’s response to sequential dental visits. J Dent Res, 56: 454–9, 1977.

15. Chambers CT, Giesbrecht K, Craig KD, Bennett SM, Huntsman E. A comparison of faces scales for the measurement of pediatric pain: chil-dren’s and parents’ ratings. Pain, 83: 25–35, 1999.

16. Wong DL, Baker CM. Pain in children: comparison of assessment scales. Pediatr Nurs, 14: 9–17, 1988.

17. Wong DL. Wong on web. Available at http://www3.us.-elsevierhealth.com/WOW/faces.html. Acessed August 27, 2006.

18. Louw AJ, Sarvan I, Chikte UME, Honkala E. One-year evaluation of atraumatic restorative treatment and minimum intervention techniques on primary teeth. SADJ, 57: 366–71, 2002.

19. Lopez N, Simpser-Rafalin S, Berthold P. Atraumatic Restorative treat-ment for prevention and treatment of caries in an underserved commu-nity. Amer J Publ Health, 95: 1338–9, 2005.

20. Topaloglu-Ak A, Eden E, Frencken JE. Perceived dental atraumatic anxiety among school children treated through three caries removal approaches. J Appl Oral Sci, 15: 235–40, 2007.

21. Vassend O. Anxiety, pain and discomfort associated with dental treat-ment. Behav Res Ther, 31: 659–66, 1993.

22. Newton JT, Buck DJ. Anxiety and pain measures in dentistry: a guide to their quality and application. J Am Dent Assoc, 131: 1449–57, 2000.

23. Verslooot J, Veerkamp JS, Hoogstraten J. Children’s self-reported pain at the dentist. Pain, 137: 389–94, 2008.

24. Uman LS, Chambers CT, McGrath PJ, Kisely SR. Psychological inter-ventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 4: CD005179, 2006.

25. Motzfeld R. Glass ionomer, current clinical indications in restorative dentistry. Rev Dent Chile, 81: 74–8, 1990.

26. van de Hoeff N, van Amerogen WE. Influence of local anesthesia on the quality of class II glass ionomer restorations. Inter J Ped Dent, 17: 239–47, 2007.

27. Yip HK, Smales RJ, Yu C, Gao XJ, Deng DM. Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars: one-year results. Quintessence Int, 33: 17–21, 2002.