European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 11, Issue 5, pp 218–224 | Cite as

Child and parental acceptance of preformed metal crowns

  • S. J. Bell
  • A. G. Morgan
  • Z. Marshman
  • H. D. Rodd


AIM: To assess child and parent acceptance of preformed metal crowns (PMCs). STUDY DESIGN: This was a service evaluation using a child- and parent-centred self-report questionnaire in a convenience sample of hospital patients. METHODS: Questionnaires were developed with serviceusers and issued to 98 children who had received a PMC on a primary molar within the paediatric dentistry clinic, Sheffield Dental Hospital, UK. Children used a pictorial Likert scale to rate their treatment experience and views on PMCs. Parents were also asked to complete a 5-item questionnaire, to explore their attitudes towards the PMC and how they felt their child had coped with treatment. Both children and parents were invited to comment in a free-text box on any other issues relating to PMCs. Clinical data were extrapolated from the child’s dental records as follows: child’s age and gender; status of clinician who had placed the PMC (staff or student), and technique for PMC placement (Hall technique or conventional). RESULTS: 62 questionnaires were completed (63% response rate). The mean age of the child participants was 6.6 years (SD±1.51; range=3.8–10.3), and 65% (n=40) were male. Most children found the clinical procedure acceptable with 54.8% (n=34) reporting it was ‘really easy’, with no significant differences according to placement technique, or the experience level of the operator (P<0.05, chi-squared test). Only 4.8% (n=3) of parents expressed strong objections to the appearance. Both children and parents felt the clinical rationale had been fully explained to them (88.7%, n=55 and 100%, n=62 respectively). Themes commonly identified from the children’s accounts related to specialness, function and recollections of the treatment, with the perception that PMCs were valued for being different. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that PMCs were mainly viewed favourably by children and their parents. Clinicians who have been reluctant to use this restorative approach may be encouraged by these findings. However, communication and clinical expertise are paramount in ensuring children and parents have positive treatment experiences and attitudes towards PMCs.


Children preformed metal crown satisfaction parents 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Association of Pediatric Dentistry. Clinical Guideline on Pediatric Restorative Dentistry. 2008. (accessed on 14/1/2010).
  2. Atieh M. Stainless steel crown versus modified open-sandwich restoration for primary molars: a 2-year randomized clinical trial. Int J Paed Dent 2008; 18:325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Attari N, Roberts JF. Restoration of primary teeth with crowns: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2006; 7:58–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chadwick BL, Gash C, Stewart K. Preformed metal crowns: views of a group of dental practitioners in North Wales. Prim Dent Care 2007; 14:140–144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Evans DJ, Southwick CA, Foley JI, et al. The Hall Technique: a pilot trial of a novel use of pre-formed metal crowns for managing carious primary teeth. Department of Health. National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services, 2003. London: Department of Health, 2003.Google Scholar
  6. Fayle SA, Welbury RR, Roberts JF; British Society of Paediatric Dentistry. BSPD. British Society of Paediatric Dentistry: a policy document on management of caries in the primary dentition. Int J Paediatr Dent 2001; 11: 153–157.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Fayle SA, Tahmassebi JF. Paediatric dentistry in the new millennium: 2. Behaviour management-helping children to accept dentistry. Dent Update 2003; 30:294–298.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Fishman R, Guelmann M, Bimstein E. Children’s selection of posterior restorative materials. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2006; 31:1–4. General Dental Council. The first five years: a framework for undergraduate dental education. 3rd ed. London: GDC, 2008.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Innes NP, Stirrups DR, Evans DJ, Hall N, Leggate M. A novel technique using preformed metal crowns for managing carious primary molars in general practice — a retrospective analysis. Br Dent J. 2006; 200:451–454.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Innes NP, Evans DJ, Stirrups DR. The Hall Technique; a randomized controlled clinical trial of a novel method of managing carious primary molars in general dental practice: acceptability of the technique and outcomes at 23 months. BMC Oral Health. 2007; 7:18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Innes NPT, Ricketts D, Evans DJP. Preformed metal crowns for decayed primary molar teeth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD005512. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005512.pub2.Google Scholar
  12. Kershaw S, Newton JT, Williams DM. The influence of tooth colour on the perceptions of personal characteristics among female dental patients: comparisons of unmodified, decayed and ‘whitened’ teeth. Br Dent J 2008; 204: E9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kindelan SA, Day P, Nichol R, Willmott N, Fayle SA; British Society of Paediatric Dentistry. UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry: stainless steel preformed crowns for primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2008; 18 Suppl 1:20–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kowolik J, Kozlowski D, Jones JE. Utilization of stainless steel crowns by general dentists and pediatric dental specialists in Indiana. J Indiana Dent Assoc 2007; 86:16–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Marshman Z, Hall MJ. Oral health research with children. Int J Paed Dent 2008; 18:235–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mouradian WE. Making decisions for children. Angle Orthodontist 1999; 69: 300–305.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. National Service Framework for Children, young people and maternity services: Key Issues for Primary Care. Dept. of Health, 2004.Google Scholar
  18. Newsome PR, McGrath C. Patient-centred measures in dental practice: 3. Patient satisfaction. Dent Update 2007; 34:87–8, 90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Pope C, Mays N. Qualitative research in healthcare. 2000: 20–25. London, BMJ.Google Scholar
  20. Randall RC. Preformed metal crowns for primary and permanent teeth: review of the literature. Pediatric Dent 2002; 24:489–500.Google Scholar
  21. Rodd HD, Barker C, Baker SR, Marshman Z, Robinson PG. Social judgements made by children in relation to visible incisor trauma. Dent Traumatol 2010; 26:2–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rodd HD, Farman M, Albadri S, Mackie IC. Undergraduate experience and self-assessed confidence in paediatric dentistry: comparison of three UK dental schools. Br Dent J 2010; 208: 221–225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Roshan D, Curzon ME, Fairpo CG. Changes in dentists’ attitudes and practice in paediatric dentistry. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2003; 4:21–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Threlfall AG, Pilkington L, Milsom KM, Blinkhorn AS, Tickle M. General dental practitioners’ views on the use of stainless steel crowns to restore primary molars. Br Dent J 2005; 199: 453–455.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. van Bochove JA, van Amerongen WE. The influence of restorative treatment approaches and the use of local analgesia, on the children’s discomfort. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2006; 7:11–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Zimmerman JA, Feigal RJ, Till MJ, Hodges JS. Parental attitudes on restorative materials as factors influencing current use in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent 2009; 31: 63–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. J. Bell
    • 1
  • A. G. Morgan
    • 1
  • Z. Marshman
    • 1
  • H. D. Rodd
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Oral Health and DevelopmentSchool of Dentistry, Claremont CrescentSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations