Treatment options for mandibular canine transmigration - a case series based on dental literature.

The present case series, based on dental literature, aimed to identify factors that influence the final treatment decision for patients affected by mandibular canine transmigration using individual data from case reports in the literature. The protocol used for data synthesis was prepared following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. An online search was conducted and included studies published up until September of 2019 (MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Scielo, and Conricyt). A chi squared test was used to evaluate associations between the treatment choice and gender, age, Mupparapu classification, and the presence of oral pathologies or dental anomalies (p < 0.05). A multinomial logistic regression was used to evaluate the individual case report data to determine the effect of the explanatory variables for treatment selection. Seventy-six papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Surgical removal (46.71%) and radiographic monitoring (38.16%) were the most common treatments reported. Age, Muppararu classification, and the presence of oral pathologies were significantly associated with the treatment option (p < 0.05). In conclusion, surgical removal and radiographic monitoring are the most frequently reported treatments for mandibular canine transmigration. Age, Mupparapu type, presence of oral pathologies, and qualitative aspects such as emotional reasons are relevant for the decision regarding treatment approach.

A video eyeglasses/earphones system as distracting method during dental treatment in children: A crossover randomised and controlled clinical trial.

AIM To evaluate the effectiveness of a Video Eyeglasses/Earphones System (VEES) as distracting device in reducing anxiety in children during dental procedures carried out under local anaesthesia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this crossover clinical trial, 36 Frankl scale II and III children aged 5-8 years received different dental procedures in two sessions, with and without the VEES system. In the control visit, they were not exposed to this distraction stimulus, but traditional non-aversive behaviour management was applied. Each dental session was divided into four phases (explanation, anaesthetic injection, rubber-dam/clamp placement, and high-speed hand piece work for 5 min). Pain in each treatment phase was assessed by the following measurements: the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scale. Pulse rate, and oxygen saturation measurements were employed to evaluate the state of anxiety. Comparison of the outcomes of two interventions were statistically analysed through the Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences between the results of the two interventions (VEES vs. no VEES/behavioural management) during the four treatment phases on assessment by any of the measurements employed. CONCLUSIONS: The VEES method was not more effective than traditional non-aversive behavioural techniques for reducing anxiety and pain perception in children undergoing dental treatment.