Stress Response During Rapid Maxillary Expansion in Children.

Purpose: To assess the effect of rapid maxillary expansion (RME) on the inflammatory and stress response of patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Methods: Eighty salivary samples were collected from patients (n=16) during RME at five moments: before the expander placement (T1); 25 minutes after its first activa- tion (T2); seven days after placement, shortly after the patient arrived at the dental clinic (T3); 25 minutes after the appliance activation on day seven (T4) and one month after the last activation of the appliance (T5). Cortisol and nitric oxide levels were evaluated using an immunoassay kit and the Griess method, respectively. Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were used for statistical analysis (P <0.05). Results: Participants' mean age was 11.5 years. There was a significant change in cortisol levels over the study period in the total sample (P<0.01), for the Haas appliance (P=0.01), female sex (P=0.01), younger children (P=0.01), presence of large overbite (P=0.02), presence of posterior crossbite (P =0.006), Class I type occlusion (P=0.02) and mesofacial facial type (P =0.02). Regarding nitric oxide, there was a significant change over the study period in those who wore the Haas appliance (P =0.04). For nitric oxide levels, T1 was significantly higher than T3, T4 and T5 (P <0.05) for those who wore a Haas appliance. Conclusion: The period anticipating the consultation at the waiting reception area was more stressful than the dental procedure in patients undergoing RME. This procedure did not cause alterations in salivary biomarkers related to inflammation.

Child Stress and Behaviour During Restorative Treatment under Non-Pharmacological Techniques and Sedation: A Case Series

ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the behaviour and stress of children undergoing restorative treatment with and without sedation. Material and Methods: Participants were 14 healthy children aged between 2.5 and 6 years and with a history of dental behavioural management problems. In the dental treatment visit, the child was treated with non-pharmacological techniques, and in the second, moderate sedation was added. The child received the same procedure performed by a paediatric dentist in both visits: composite resin restoration using local anaesthesia and rubber dam isolation. In both visits, saliva was collected at the children's arrival at the dental clinic, during local anaesthesia and at the end of treatment. The visits were filmed for later analysis of behaviour according to the Ohio State University Behavioural Rating Scale. Results: About 78.5% of children improved their behaviour from the first to the second visit. The salivary cortisol curve of the first visit was maintained in the second visit for 21.4% of children but varied in the remaining participants. Conclusion: Most children presented better behaviour and less stress when sedation was added to non-pharmacological techniques during dental care.

Assessment of child's dental anxiety/fear and stress during dental treatment: a systematic review by CEDACORE.

There is a lack of evidence on the correlation between salivary biomarkers and subjective measures of dental fear and anxiety in children. This systematic review aimed to retrieve the scientific evidence comparing the results of dental anxiety measured by salivary biomarkers with patient-reported outcomes in pediatric dental setting. The PECOS was as follows: population: pediatric patients aged ≤ 18 years; exposure: patient-reported outcome measures, such as scales and/or questionnaires; comparator: salivary biomarkers; outcome: anxiety, fear, phobia or stress during dental treatment; study design: observational studies or controlled trials. Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Ovid databases. Studies that compared scales/questionnaires and salivary biomarkers for the evaluation of dental anxiety, fear, and stress in children/adolescents during dental treatment were included. Certainty of evidence was assessed with GRADE. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed with the Cochrane tool or the University of Adelaide tool. From the 314 studies identified, eight were included. Participants' age ranged from three to 13 years. The most used salivary biomarkers and instruments were cortisol and the Dental Subscale of the Children's Fear Survey Schedule, respectively. Most studies showed a weak correlation between objective and subjective measures. The main issues regarding bias were on allocation concealment, blinding of assessors, follow up, and exposure assessment. Certainty of evidence was low/very low. Evidence of salivary biomarkers and patient-reported outcome measures to investigate anxiety, fear and stress in children during in the dental environment is limited. There was no correlation between subjective and objective measures in almost all included studies.

Assessment of child's dental anxiety/fear and stress during dental treatment: a systematic review by CEDACORE

Abstract: There is a lack of evidence on the correlation between salivary biomarkers and subjective measures of dental fear and anxiety in children. This systematic review aimed to retrieve the scientific evidence comparing the results of dental anxiety measured by salivary biomarkers with patient-reported outcomes in pediatric dental setting. The PECOS was as follows: population: pediatric patients aged ≤ 18 years; exposure: patient-reported outcome measures, such as scales and/or questionnaires; comparator: salivary biomarkers; outcome: anxiety, fear, phobia or stress during dental treatment; study design: observational studies or controlled trials. Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Ovid databases. Studies that compared scales/questionnaires and salivary biomarkers for the evaluation of dental anxiety, fear, and stress in children/adolescents during dental treatment were included. Certainty of evidence was assessed with GRADE. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed with the Cochrane tool or the University of Adelaide tool. From the 314 studies identified, eight were included. Participants' age ranged from three to 13 years. The most used salivary biomarkers and instruments were cortisol and the Dental Subscale of the Children's Fear Survey Schedule, respectively. Most studies showed a weak correlation between objective and subjective measures. The main issues regarding bias were on allocation concealment, blinding of assessors, follow up, and exposure assessment. Certainty of evidence was low/very low. Evidence of salivary biomarkers and patient-reported outcome measures to investigate anxiety, fear and stress in children during in the dental environment is limited. There was no correlation between subjective and objective measures in almost all included studies.

Sedation versus protective stabilization for dental treatment of children with caries and challenging behavior at the dentist (CHOOSE): a study protocol for a non-randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of evidence on the effectiveness of moderate sedation in pediatric dentistry, compared to protective stabilization, which remains routinely used in Brazil despite moral questions. This prospective non-randomized clinical trial's objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of moderate sedation, compared to the protective stabilization, in the dental care of children with dental behavior management problems. METHODS: Participants will be 152 children under seven years of age with early childhood caries (ECC) who need specialized dental treatment due to a history of challenging behavior during dental care. The interventions to be compared are moderate sedation with oral administration of ketamine and midazolam and protective stabilization. The primary endpoint will be the child's behavior during treatment assessed using the Ohio State University Behavioral Rating Scale (OSUBRS). The secondary outcomes are (A) child's - behavior according to the visual analogue scale, anxiety, pain, and physiological stress; (B) parent's - satisfaction and anxiety; (C) family and child - impact on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL); (D) dentist's - satisfaction and stress; (E) procedure - adverse events of the intervention and dental treatment longevity. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS). DISCUSSION: Considering the primary outcome, this study hypothesis is that sedated children have better behavior during dental treatment than children whose behavior was managed by protective stabilization without sedation. Additionally, at the end of 12 months, we expect to identify participants' reported outcomes and objective measures related to dental behavior in early childhood. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov registration NCT04119180 on October 8th, 2019. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04119180.