Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2017; 11(01): 001-005
DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_288_16
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Effectiveness of audiovisual distraction with computerized delivery of anesthesia during the placement of stainless steel crowns in children with Down syndrome

Kausar Sadia Fakhruddin
1   Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
,
Hisham El Batawi
1   Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
,
M. O. Gorduysus
1   Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
2   Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkiye
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 September 2019 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: Assessing effectiveness of audiovisual (AV) distraction with/without video eyewear and computerized delivery system-intrasulcular (CDS-IS) for local anesthesia during placement of stainless steel crowns for the management of pathological tooth grinding in children with Down syndrome. Materials and Methods: This clinical study includes 22 children (13 boys and 9 girls), with mean age being 7.1 years. The study involved three sessions 1-week apart. During Session I, dental prophylaxis to the upper jaw was done while watching a movie projected on the ceiling without video eyewear whereas prophylaxis for the lower jaw and impressions of both jaws were taken while watching another movie using eyewear projection. After 1 week, during Session II/III, children had their upper and lower second primary molars which were prepared and steel crowns inserted, respectively, while watching movies which were projected using video eyewear under the effect of CDS-IS local anesthesia. Changes in pulse oximeter and heart rate were recorded every 5 min. Independent sample t-test was used to assess significance of changes during each visit. Results: A statistically significant difference (P < 0.03) was observed in mean pulse rate between dental prophylaxis without video eyewear and during dental prophylaxis and dental impression taken while children were distracted using AV distracter with video eyewear. We observed an increase in mean pulse rate during tooth preparation use dental drills, but this does not lead to disruptive behavior as children were being distracted by AV distracter with video eyewear. Conclusion: Routine psychological (Tell-Show-Do) intervention along with visual distraction using video eyewear and use of CDS-IS system for anesthetic delivery is recommended as an effective behavior management technique for children with Down syndrome during invasive dental treatment.

Key words:

Computerized delivery system-intrasulcular - Down syndrome - pathological tooth grinding - stainless steel crowns - visual distraction video eyewear
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Bell EJ, Kaidonis J, Townsend GC. Tooth wear in children with Down syndrome. Aust Dent J 2002; 47: 30-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lindqvist B, Heijbel J. Bruxism in children with brain damage. Acta Odontol Scand 1974; 32: 313-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Richmond G, Rugh JD, Dolfi R, Wasilewsky JW. Survey of bruxism in an institutionalized mentally retarded population. Am J Ment Defic 1984; 88: 418-21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Weijerman ME, de Winter JP. Clinical practice.The care of children with Down syndrome. Eur J Pediatr 2010; 169: 1445-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Carranza FA, Newman MG, Takei HH, Klokkevold PR. Carranza's Clinical Periodontology. 10th ed.. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co; 2006: p. 299-397, 409, 623
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Dean JA, McDonald RE, Avery DR. Dentistry for the Child and Adolescent. 8th ed.. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; p. 164-8-190-4, 474
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Nishigawa K, Bando E, Nakano M. Quantitative study of bite force during sleep associated bruxism. J Oral Rehabil 2001; 28: 485-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Pinkham JR, Casamassimo PS, McTigue DJ, Fields Jr HW, Nowak AJ. Infancy through Adolescence, Pediatric Dentistry. 4th ed.. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Cameron AC, Widmer RP. Handbook of Pediatric Dentistry. 2nd ed.. Mosby: Australasian Academy of Pediatric Dentistry; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Fakhruddin KS, El Batawi H, Gorduysus MO. Effectiveness of audiovisual distraction eyewear and computerized delivery of anesthesia during pulp therapy of primary molars in phobic child patients. Eur J Dent 2015; 9: 470-5
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bellieni CV, Cordelli DM, Raffaelli M, Ricci B, Morgese G, Buonocore G. Analgesic effect of watching TV during venipuncture. Arch Dis Child 2006; 91: 1015-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hoffman HG, Doctor JN, Patterson DR, Carrougher GJ, Furness 3rd TA. Virtual reality as an adjunctive pain control during burn wound care in adolescent patients. Pain 2000; 85: 305-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Cassidy KL, Reid GJ, McGrath PJ, Finley GA, Smith DJ, Morley C. et al. Watch needle, watch TV: Audiovisual distraction in preschool immunization. Pain Med 2002; 3: 108-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Sparks L. Taking the “ouch” out of injections for children. Using distraction to decrease pain. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs 2001; 26: 72-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Dowling JS. Humor: A coping strategy for pediatric patients. Pediatr Nurs 2002; 28: 123-31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Berggren U, Meynert G. Dental fear and avoidance: Causes, symptoms, and consequences. J Am Dent Assoc 1984; 109: 247-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Jones CM, Heidmann J, Gerrish AC. Children's ratings of dental injection and treatment pain, and the influence of the time taken to administer the injection. Int J Paediatr Dent 1995; 5: 81-5
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Schleder JR, Reader A, Beck M, Meyers WJ. The periodontal ligament injection: A comparison of 2% lidocaine, 3% mepivacaine, and 1:100,000 epinephrine to 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in human mandibular premolars. J Endod 1988; 14: 397-404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Oztas N, Ulusu T, Bodur H, Dogan C. The wand in pulp therapy: An alternative to inferior alveolar nerve block. Quintessence Int 2005; 36: 559-64
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Malamed SF. Sedation: A Guide to Patient Management. 4th ed.. St. Louis, MO: CV Mosby Co; 2003: 337
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Ran D, Peretz B. Assessing the pain reaction of children receiving periodontal ligament anesthesia using a computerized device (wand). J Clin Pediatr Dent 2003; 27: 247-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ashkenazi M, Blumer S, Eli I. Effectiveness of computerized delivery of intrasulcular anesthetic in primary molars. J Am Dent Assoc 2005; 136: 1418-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Aitken JC, Wilson S, Coury D, Moursi AM. The effect of music distraction on pain, anxiety and behavior in pediatric dental patients. Pediatr Dent 2002; 24: 114-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar