| کلیدواژههای انگلیسی مقاله |
Animated Modeling, Anxiety, Cooperation, Children, Dentistry, IntroductionBehavior management of children is often a major challenge that a dentist has to cope with during a treatment session. Fear and anxiety of children with regard to the prospect of dental treatments are serious problems that families and pediatric dentists need to address [ 1,- 2,]. Unless it is cured, this problem might persist until adulthood [ 3,]. As far as children are concerned, there is a strong correlation between the anxiety induced by dental treatment and positive prognosis in dentistry therefore, anxiety management is of paramount importance as a significant factor, which contributes to success in dental treatments [ 4,]. The state of anxiety experienced during a dental treatment is a common condition that, in most cases, seems to originate from childhood. Consequently, a child might refuse to cooperate and may show disruptive behavior during a treatment session. This could result in multiple complications, including, delayed treatment occasional failure in conducting the treatment using conventional methods of behavior guidance refusal to observe dental care and, eventually, increased prevalence of dental caries [ 5,- 7,]. The first visit to a dentist is very important in terms of shaping the child&,rsquo s behavior, their attitude, and ensuring treatment success. Pediatric dentists often rely on the Tell-Show-Do (TSD) technique to manage a child&,rsquo s anxiety during the examination session prior to the treatment visit. This technique involves explaining the work that is going to be performed on the patient before the actual treatment practice. Next, the child is exposed to a simulation of the work to be done. This technique is based on the premise of acquisition and is conducted by the dentist within the actual treatment environment [ 8,].Other prevalent behavior management methods include desensitization visual modeling play therapy animated-movie modeling, and pharmacological behavior control [ 8,- 9,]. According to the modeling technique, which was first introduced by Bandura in 1967, a child is expected to acquire and show a behavior consistent with that of a model they have previously been exposed to in a similar context [ 10,]. A sibling of the patient is employed to educate the child about the expected behavior during the session prior to the treatment visit.Several studies have focused on the efficacy of animated-movie modeling in reducing the dental treatment anxiety experienced by children. The results indicate that the application of animated-movie modeling can be just as effective as other approaches, such as live modeling techniques and various desensitization methods. Unlike techniques based on collective learning, the animated-movie modeling approach does not impose spending a great deal of time on the dentist and the caring team [ 8,]. The present study was designed to evaluate the effect of modeling on the behavior of a sample population of Iranian children using an animated-movie, which simulated an actual dental-office environment with animated characters. Furthermore, the study aimed to compare the efficacy of this method versus the conventional TSD technique.Materials and MethodThis randomized controlled single blinded parallel-group clinical trial was approved by the Research and Ethics Committee, Faculty of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Science, Mashhad, Iran under the serial code, IR.mums.sd.REC.1395.139. This study was performed considering the consolidated standards of reporting trials statement for randomized trial. It was conducted and reported in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki for Biomedical Research Involving Human Patients. The participants were selected from eligible patients who referred to Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Science from February to March 2017. Preparation of the patients and clinical procedures were conducted in the clinical Department of Pediatric Dentistry from March 2017 to June 2017.A study population of children aged 4 to 6, who met the following inclusion and exclusion criteria, was selected with goal-oriented sampling strategy. The inclusion criteria depicted as (1) needing at least one restoration involving a mandibular molar and requiring inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia, (2) having no record of admission in hospital, (3) having no previous experience of dental treatment, and (4) negative history of any particular underlying disease. The exclusion criteria described as (1) emergency needs such as drainage of abscess or extraction, (2) behavioral disorder or cognitive impairment, and (3) pulpal exposure of the tooth during caries removal. After a brief examination of the patients to verify their eligibility to enter the study, a pediatric dentist conducted an interview was with the children&,rsquo s parents or their primary caregivers to obtain medical and dental history. Then the purpose and method of the study were described for the parents. The informed consent form and the personal information section of the patient&,rsquo s file were signed and filled by parents.The sample size in this study was considered 25 in each group regarding Kebriaee et al. study [ 11,] with the type 1 error level of 5%, type 2 error level of 20%, and dropout rate of 10%. Eventually, 50 patients were entered into the study and randomly assigned to two equal groups of control (n=25) and experimental (n= 25). Two appointments were scheduled for each patient with one-week interval between. One patient from each group was excluded from the study after they refused to show up for the second treatment session.First appointmentAdopting a balanced randomized block design and usin-g the randomizer.com website, each patient was allocated to either of the following groups by the second author.The control group, Tell-Show-Do group (TSD)In this group, the patient learned about the dental procedures and instruments using Tell-Show-Do technique during the first visit. Then patients received prophylaxis with rubber cup and low speed handpiece followed by fluoride therapy with %1.1 sodium fluoride gel as a preparation stage to familiarize these patients with the environment of a dental office. At the end of the session, a reward gift was given to the patient to serve as an encouraging positive reinforcement.The experimental group, Modeling using an animated movie (Jilo)During the first visit, the patient and the accompanying parent were led to sit in a quiet room and watch an animated movie entitled &,ldquo Jilo goes to a dentist&,rdquo (https,// www.aparat.com/v/g7wFt,). The storyline of this animation is set in the animal world one day, a young bear called Jilo goes to a dentist with his mother. Dental instruments and procedures are designed in the form of objects and concepts that a child can understand, and that involve their imagination. For example, the suction procedure has been modeled using an elephant&apos,s trunk and its power to suck in water. After watching the animated movie, the patients were let to rest for 30 minutes, which was followed by prophylaxis and fluoride therapy in the same manner as the control group.One week later, during the second visit, the patients were reminded of the atmosphere of the animated movie and its characters before undergoing a restoration that required mandibular nerve block injection.Second appointmentA week after the first appointment, the patient returned to the clinic. The patient was asked to take a seat on a dental unit without the presence of their parent. Mandibular nerve block injection was performed in conjunction with topical anesthesia. Once local anesthesia was ensured, an access cavity was prepared to remove the caries and restore the tooth. It was made sure that all patients were treated under similar circumstances, such as the performance of the dentist and their assistant, instruments and materials, treatment environment, treatment time (half an hour past breakfast in the morning) and duration of the treatment (about one hour). Similar trained practitioner (second author) did all the procedures for both groups (Figure 1,).Figure 1. Flowchart of the study designBehavioral evaluationIn all stages in the first and second visit, a camera (Panasonic, NV-GS35GC) was fixed in position- directed at the patient- filming their face, hands and feet, in order to accurate recording of the patient&,rsquo s behavior.Two evaluators, who were blind to the experimented techniques, watched the recorded films of both groups separately. They assessed the behavior of all patients (cooperation and anxiety levels) during all stages of prophylaxis, fluoride therapy, anesthetic injection, and dental instrumentation with a handpiece considering the recorded videos. This assessment was performed by using Venham Clinical Cooperation Scale (VCCS) and Venham Clinical Anxiety Scale (VCAS), which are among the most frequent behavior scoring models [ 12,- 13,]. These scales contain six defined behavioral levels that range from 0 to 5. The highest score defines the highest anxiety level,or the least cooperation (Table 1, and 2,).ScoreDefinition1Uneasy, concerned, may protest briefly to show discomfort, hands remain down or partially raised. Tense facial expression. Capable of cooperating2Tense, tone of voice, questions, and answers reflect anxiety. During stressful procedure, verbal protest, crying, hands raised with tension, but not interfering very much. Protest more distracting and troublesome. Child still complies with request to cooperate.3Reluctant, prominent verbal protest, crying. Using hands to try to stop procedure. Treatment proceeds with difficulty.4Interference, general crying, body movements sometimes needing physical restraint. Protest disrupts Procedure.5Out of contact, hard loud swearing, screaming unable to listen, trying to escape. Physical restraint required.Table 1. Venham Clinical Cooperation Scale (VCCS) description [14,]ScoreDefinition1Mild, soft verbal protest or (quiet) crying as a signal of discomfort, but does not obstruct progress. Appropriate behavior for procedure, i.e., slight start at injection, &,ldquo ow&,rdquo during drilling if hurting, etc.2Protest more prominent. Both crying and hand signals. May move head around making it hard to administer treatment. Protest more distracting and troublesome. However, child still complies with request to cooperate.3Protest presents real problem to dentist. Complies with demands reluctantly, requiring extra effort by dentist. Body movement.4Protest disrupts procedure, requires that all of the dentist&,rsquo s attention be directed toward the child&,rsquo s behavior. Compliance eventually achieved after considerable effort by dentist, but without actual physical restraint. May require holding child&,rsquo s hands or other parts of the body to start treatment. More prominent body movement.5General protest, no compliance, or cooperation. Physical restraint is required.Table 2. Venham Clinical Anxiety Scale (VCAS) description [14,]If there were any differences in the scores of the reviewers, the film was reviewed and both reviewers achieved an agreement on a score.Thus for each patient, two scores on the levels of anxiety and cooperation for the first visit (prophylaxis and fluoride therapy) and two scores for the second visit (restoration), were obtained. In order to confirm the intra-examiner reliability, 5 patients from each group were randomly selected and their films were re-evaluated and scored, and correlation coefficient was obtained. No changes were made to the design and outcomes of the study after trial commenced.Statistical analysisData were analyzed with SPSS version 21. Normal distribution of data was determined using Shapiro-Wilk Normality test. Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare VCCS and VCAS between two study groups. In addition, the relationship between the variables was assessed using Spearmen Correlation Coefficient. The significant level was considered as p&,lt 0.05.ResultsIn this study, 48 patients participated in both visits including 17 boys (35.4%) and 31 girls (64.6%) with a mean age of 5.32&,plusmn 6.33 years. The patients were divided into control and Jilo (experimental) groups (n= 24 in each group). Table 3, shows demographical information of participants in each group. There was no significant difference in gender distribution (p= 0.113) and mean age between the two groups (p= 0.503). The correlation between the two evaluators showed that there was a high agreement between the two evaluators in assessing the level of anxiety and cooperation. Shapiro Wilk&apos,s test revealed non-normal distribution of the data.GroupsNSexAgeMaleFemaleExperimental Group (Jilo)246(25%)18(75%)5.16&,plusmn 0.61Control Group (TSD)2411(45.8%)13(54.2%)5.29&,plusmn 0.65Total4817(35.4%)31(64.6%)5.23 0.63p Value0.1310.503 Comparison between the two groups was done using Chi square test for sex and T-Test for age. |