Cargando…

Impact of two early treatment protocols for anterior dental crossbite on children’s quality of life

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of two early treatment protocols for anterior dental crossbite on children’s quality of life. METHODS: Thirty children, 8 to 10 years of age, with anterior dental crossbite, participated in this study. Individuals were divided into two groups: Group 1 - 15 children un...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Miamoto, Cristina Batista, Marques, Leandro Silva, Abreu, Lucas Guimarães, Paiva, Saul Martins
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dental Press International 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5962250/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29791690
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.23.1.071-078.oar
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of two early treatment protocols for anterior dental crossbite on children’s quality of life. METHODS: Thirty children, 8 to 10 years of age, with anterior dental crossbite, participated in this study. Individuals were divided into two groups: Group 1 - 15 children undergoing treatment with an upper removable appliance with digital springs; Group 2 - 15 children undergoing treatment with resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement bite pads on the lower first molars. Quality of life was evaluated using the Brazilian version of the Child Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ(8-10)), which contains four subscales: oral symptoms (OS), functional limitations (FL), emotional well-being (EW), and social well-being (SW). A higher score denotes a greater negative impact on children’s quality of life. Children answered the questionnaire before treatment (T(1)) and twelve months after orthodontic treatment onset (T(2)). Descriptive statistics, the Wilcoxon test and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were performed. RESULTS: Children’s mean age was 9.07 ± 0.79 years in Group 1 and 9.00 ± 0.84 years in Group 2. For Group 1, the FL and EW subscale scores and the overall CPQ(8-10) were significantly higher in T(1) as compared to T(2) (p= 0.004, p= 0.012 and p= 0.015, respectively). For Group 2, there were no statistically significant differences. The ANCOVA showed no significant difference regarding quality of life at T(2) between groups, after controlling for quality of life measures at T(1). CONCLUSIONS: The difference regarding the impact on quality of life between groups is not related to the protocol used.