The influence of restorative treatment approaches and the use of local analgesia, on the children’s discomfort

  • J. A. van BochoveEmail author
  • W. E. van Amerongen


Aim: The aim is to investigate possible differences in discomfort during treatment with the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) or the Conventional restorative method with and without local analgesia (LA). Methods: The study group consisted of 6 and 7 year-old children with no dental experience (mean age 6.98, SD± 0.52) randomly divided into four treatment groups: Conventional method with and without LA and ART with and without LA. One or two proximal lesions in primary molars were treated. The heart rate and the behaviour (Venham) were measured. Statistics: Statistical analysis was performed in SPSS version 10.0. Results: In a first session 300 children were treated and 109 children for a second time in the same way as at the first visit. During the first session ART without LA gave the least discomfort while the Conventional method without LA gave the most discomfort. During the second treatment the least discomfort was observed with ART without LA and the most discomfort in the Conventional way with LA. Conclusion: There is a constant preference for hand instruments; the bur is increasingly accepted. The experience with LA is the reverse.


Paediatric Dentistry Dental Anxiety European Archive Atraumatic Restorative Technique Primary Molar 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aartman I, van Everdingen T, Hoogstraten J, Schuurs A. Self report measurements of dental anxiety and fear in children: A critical assessment. J Dent Child, 1998; 252–258.Google Scholar
  2. Benjamins C (1995). Psychophysiological measurement of dental anxiety. Thesis Amsterdam: Academic Centre for Dentistry, The Netherlands, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. Berge ten M. On the structure of childhood dental fear, using the dental subscale of the children’s fear survey schedule. Dental fear in children: prevalence, etiology and risk factors (chapter 3.2), PhD thesis, ACTA, Amsterdam, 2001.Google Scholar
  4. Blount LB, Davis N, Powers SW, Roberts MC. The influence of environmental factors and coping style on children’s coping and distress. Clin Psychol Rev 1991;11: 93–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chambers CT, Craig KD. An intrusive impact of anchors in children’s faces pain scales. Pain 1998;78: 27–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frencken JE, Holmgren CJ. Atraumatic Restorative Treatment for dental caries 1st Ed., Nijmegen ISBN 906759024X, 1999Google Scholar
  7. Frencken JE, Pilot T, Songpaisan Y, Phantumvanit P: Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): rationale, technique, and development. J Public Health Dent 1996;56(3 Spec No):135–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gatchel RJ. Managing anxiety and pain during dental treatment J Am Dent Assoc 1992;123: 37–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Holmgren CJ, Pilot T. Discussion from the symposium “Minimal intervention techniques for caries”. J Public Health Dent 1996;56: 161–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Huskinsson EC. Measurement of Pain. The Lancet, 1974; 9: 1127–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kleinknecht RA, Klepac RK, Alexander LD. Origins and characteristics of fear of dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 1973;86: 842–848PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Klingberg G, Vanas Löfqvist L, H wang CP. Validity of the Children’s Dental Fear Picture test (CDFP) Eur J Oral Sci 1995; 103: 55–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lenters M, Amerongen WE van, Mandari GJ. A measure of iatrogenic damage to the adjacent surfaces of deciduous molars, in three different ways of cavity preparation. Eur. Arch. Paed. Dent. 2006;7: 6–10Google Scholar
  14. Liddell A, Locker D. Gender and age differences in attitudes to dental pain and dental control. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1997;25: 314–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lussi A, Gygax M: Iatrogenic damage to adjacent teeth during classical approximal box preparation. J Dent 1998;26(5–6):435–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Massara MLA, Alves JB, Brandão PRG. Atraumatic restorative treatment: clinical, ultrastructural and chemical analysis. Caries Res 2002;36: 430–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McCarty CA, Weisz JR, Wanitromanee K, et al. Culture, coping, and context: primary and secondary control among Thai and American youth. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1999 40(5): 809–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mhaville R, van Amerongen W.E, Mandari G. Radiographic assessment of residual caries and marginal integrity after preparation in three different ways and restoration with hand mixed glass-ionomer. Eur. Arch. Paed. Dent. 2006; in pressGoogle Scholar
  19. Milgrom P, Mancl L, King B, Weinstein P. Origins of childhood dental fear. Behav Res Ther 1995;33: 313–319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Milgrom P, Coldwell SE, Getz T, Weinstein P, Ramsay DS. Four dimensions of fear of dental injections. Journ Am Dent Assoc 1997;128: 756–62Google Scholar
  21. Nakai Y, Milgrom P, Mancl L, Coldwell SE, Domoto et al. Effectiveness of local anaesthesia in pediatric dental practice. J Am Dent Assoc 2000;131:1699–1705.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Qvist V, Johannessen L, Bruun M: Progression of approximal caries in relation to iatrogenic preparation damage. J Dent Res 1992;71(7):1370–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rahimtoola S, van Amerongen WE, Maher R, Groen H. Pain related to different ways of minimal intervention in the treatment of small caries lesions. J Dent Child 2000; 67:123–7.Google Scholar
  24. Schriks MCM, van Amerongen WE. Atraumatic perspective of ART: p s y — chological and physiological aspects of treatment with and without rotary instruments. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2003;31:15–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Veerkamp JSJ, Gruythuysen RJM, Amerongen WE van, Hoogstraten J. Dental treatment of fearful children using nitrous oxide. Part 3, anxiety during sequential visits. J Dent Child 1993;60: 175–82.Google Scholar
  26. Venham LL, Bengston D, Cipes M. Children’s response to sequential dental visits. J Dent Res 1977;56 (5):454–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Venham LL, Quatrocelli S. The young child’s response to repeated dental procedures. J Dent Res 1977;56 (7):734–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. Department of Cariology Endodontology PedodontologyAcademic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA)AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations