European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 25–29 | Cite as

The opinion of children and their parents about four different types of dental restorations in a public health service in Brazil

  • R. MacielEmail author
  • D. Salvador
  • K. Azoubel
  • R. Redivivo
  • C. Maciel
  • C. da Franca
  • E. Amerongen
  • V. Colares
Original Scientific Article



To investigate the opinion of children and their parents of four different types of restoration placed in primary molars.


A mixed method study in which both children and their parents were involved. In the quantitative study, children and parents gave their opinion using a face scale about four different types of restoration immediately after placement, evaluating how satisfied they were. In the qualitative part, children and their parents were interviewed to report their preference among the four types of restoration using dental models and photos.


In the quantitative study, 1045 restorations were placed, being conventional restorations (198 with amalgam and 205 with composite resin) and atraumatic interventions [408 with glass ionomer: ART, atraumatic restorative treatment, and 234 with preformed metal crowns (PMCs): Hall technique]. Almost all participants (children and parents) gave a positive opinion (from 94.9 to 100%) on the four types of restoration placed in the children’s teeth. There was no statistical significant difference in opinion in terms of acceptance of the four types of restoration placed (Chi square test, p value > 0.05). In the qualitative approach, 18 children and 11 parents were interviewed. If they could choose, children (16/18) preferred the PMCs, while parents (10/11) preferred aesthetic materials such as composite resin and glass ionomer cement.


A high degree of satisfaction was observed with children and their parents in the four types of restoration after placement. However, if it could be chosen in advance, children prefer the PMCs and parents a tooth-coloured material.


Child Dental caries Patient preference Dental care 



The authors would like to acknowledge GC Europe for supplying the GIC for this study. We also would like to acknowledge the collaboration of the dentists and dental assistants in the public health service of Olinda participating in this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Azodo C, Ogbomo A. Self-evaluated dental appearance satisfaction among young adults. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2014;4(4):603–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell SJ, Morgan AG, Marshman Z, Rodd HD. Child and parental acceptance of preformed metal crowns. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2010;11(5):218–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Faraj BM, Mohammad HM, Mohammad KM. The changes in dentists’ perception and patients’ acceptance of amalgam restoration in Kurdistan-Iraq: A questionnaire-based cross-sectional study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(4):ZC22–25Google Scholar
  4. Gilchrist F, Morgan AG, Farman M, Rodd HD. Impact of the Hall technique for preformed metal crown placement on undergraduate paediatric dentistry experience. Eur J Dent Educ. 2013;17(1):10–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kindelan SA, Day P, Nichol R, Willmott N, Fayle SA. UK National clinical guidelines in paediatric dentistry: stainless steel preformed crowns for primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2008;18(1):20–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Marshall MN. Sampling for qualitative research. Fam Pract. 1996;13:522–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Page LA, Boyd DH, Davidson SE, et al. Acceptability of the Hall technique to parents and children. Dent J. 2014;110(1):12–7.Google Scholar
  8. Peretz B, Ram D. Restorative material for children’s teeth: preferences of parents and children. ASDC J Dent Child. 2002;69(3):243–8, 233.Google Scholar
  9. Reddy SV, Madineni PK, Sudheer A, et al. Comparative analysis of rationale used by dentists and patient for final aesthetic outcome of dental treatment. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2013;14(3):532–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Santamaria RM, Innes NP, Machiulskiene V, et al. Acceptability of different caries management methods for primary molars in a RCT. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2015;25(1):9–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Tortopidis D, Hatzikyriakos A, Kokoti M, Menexes G, Tsiggos N. Evaluation of the relationship between subjects’ perception and professional assessment of aesthetic treatment needs J Esthet Restor Dent. 2007;19(3):154–62.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Maciel
    • 1
    Email author
  • D. Salvador
    • 1
  • K. Azoubel
    • 1
  • R. Redivivo
    • 2
  • C. Maciel
    • 3
  • C. da Franca
    • 1
  • E. Amerongen
    • 4
  • V. Colares
    • 1
  1. 1.Paediatric Dentistry Department, Dental SchoolUniversity of PernambucoRecifeBrazil
  2. 2.University UniversoGoiâniaBrazil
  3. 3.Endodontic SpecialistUniversity of PernambucoRecifeBrazil
  4. 4.Paediatric Dentistry DepartmentAcademic Centre for Dentistry, ACTAAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations