Comparison of Patient Acceptance and Caregiver Satisfaction of Glass-Ionomer Cement vs. Silver Fluoride/Potassium Iodide Application to Manage Molar Incisor Hypomineralisation Hypersensitivity Immediately and After 12 Weeks
<b>Aim:</b> To compare caregiver satisfaction and children’s acceptance of silver fluoride/potassium iodide (AgF + KI) treatment (Riva Star Aqua<sup>®</sup>, SDI Limited, Victoria, Australia) and glass-ionomer cement (GIC) application (Ionostar Plus + Easy Glaze, VOCO, German...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | Clinics and Practice |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2039-7283/15/2/29 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849718615153049600 |
|---|---|
| author | Ramiar Karim Walaa Ahmed Mohamed Baider Christian H. Splieth Julian Schmoeckel |
| author_facet | Ramiar Karim Walaa Ahmed Mohamed Baider Christian H. Splieth Julian Schmoeckel |
| author_sort | Ramiar Karim |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <b>Aim:</b> To compare caregiver satisfaction and children’s acceptance of silver fluoride/potassium iodide (AgF + KI) treatment (Riva Star Aqua<sup>®</sup>, SDI Limited, Victoria, Australia) and glass-ionomer cement (GIC) application (Ionostar Plus + Easy Glaze, VOCO, Germany) in reducing hypersensitivity in permanent molars affected by molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH) with the MIH treatment need index (MIH-TNI) 3 and 4 immediately after its application and after 12 weeks. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> This prospective, comparative, clinical study recruited schoolchildren with at least one hypersensitive MIH molar with a Schiff cold air sensitivity score (SCASS) of 2 and 3. Caregivers in both groups (AgF + KI and GIC + glaze) answered a questionnaire (5-Point Likert Scale) regarding the perception of the treatment immediately (15 min post application) and in the 12 weeks follow-up. Children’s behaviour during both applications was assessed using FBRS (Frankl Behaviour Rating Scale). <b>Results:</b> A total number of 47 children (n = 22 for AgF/KI and n = 25 for GIC) with a mean age of 8.6 ± 1.42 were recruited. A high proportion of the children in both arms (n = 40 out of 44; 90.1%) reported a reduction in hypersensitivity in the last 12 weeks. On average, children (n = 39; FBRS ≥ 3) in both groups showed positive behaviour, with a significantly more definitely positive behaviour in the GIC group (<i>p</i> < 0.05, independent student <i>t</i>-test). Caregiver satisfaction with both study procedures was high after immediate assessment (n = 19 out of 22, 86.4% for AgF/KI and n = 19 out of 25, 76.0% for GIC application) and in 12 weeks of follow-up (n = 17 out of 20, 85.0% for AgF/KI and n = 22 out of 24, 91.6% for GIC application). However, the taste AgF/KI is more frequently considered not acceptable for the child (n = 10; 45%) than smell (n = 2; 9%). Interestingly, there was a statistically significant difference in caregivers’ preference toward alternative desensitisation treatment (tooth restoration coverage, desensitisation paste, stainless steel crown and fluoride varnish) in both treatment groups (<i>p</i> < 0.05, Mann–Whitney U test). <b>Conclusions:</b> Both GIC and AgF/KI applications can be considered acceptable approaches to reduce hypersensitivity in permanent molars affected by MIH both immediately and in long-term follow-up for schoolchildren based on caregivers’ assessments. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-2ab7a34677444fa3868ef38d51c12610 |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2039-7283 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Clinics and Practice |
| spelling | doaj-art-2ab7a34677444fa3868ef38d51c126102025-08-20T03:12:20ZengMDPI AGClinics and Practice2039-72832025-01-011522910.3390/clinpract15020029Comparison of Patient Acceptance and Caregiver Satisfaction of Glass-Ionomer Cement vs. Silver Fluoride/Potassium Iodide Application to Manage Molar Incisor Hypomineralisation Hypersensitivity Immediately and After 12 WeeksRamiar Karim0Walaa Ahmed1Mohamed Baider2Christian H. Splieth3Julian Schmoeckel4Department of Paediatric Dentistry, University of Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Straße 42a, 17489 Greifswald, GermanyDepartment of Paediatric Dentistry, University of Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Straße 42a, 17489 Greifswald, GermanyDepartment of Paediatric Dentistry, University of Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Straße 42a, 17489 Greifswald, GermanyDepartment of Paediatric Dentistry, University of Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Straße 42a, 17489 Greifswald, GermanyDepartment of Paediatric Dentistry, University of Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Straße 42a, 17489 Greifswald, Germany<b>Aim:</b> To compare caregiver satisfaction and children’s acceptance of silver fluoride/potassium iodide (AgF + KI) treatment (Riva Star Aqua<sup>®</sup>, SDI Limited, Victoria, Australia) and glass-ionomer cement (GIC) application (Ionostar Plus + Easy Glaze, VOCO, Germany) in reducing hypersensitivity in permanent molars affected by molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH) with the MIH treatment need index (MIH-TNI) 3 and 4 immediately after its application and after 12 weeks. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> This prospective, comparative, clinical study recruited schoolchildren with at least one hypersensitive MIH molar with a Schiff cold air sensitivity score (SCASS) of 2 and 3. Caregivers in both groups (AgF + KI and GIC + glaze) answered a questionnaire (5-Point Likert Scale) regarding the perception of the treatment immediately (15 min post application) and in the 12 weeks follow-up. Children’s behaviour during both applications was assessed using FBRS (Frankl Behaviour Rating Scale). <b>Results:</b> A total number of 47 children (n = 22 for AgF/KI and n = 25 for GIC) with a mean age of 8.6 ± 1.42 were recruited. A high proportion of the children in both arms (n = 40 out of 44; 90.1%) reported a reduction in hypersensitivity in the last 12 weeks. On average, children (n = 39; FBRS ≥ 3) in both groups showed positive behaviour, with a significantly more definitely positive behaviour in the GIC group (<i>p</i> < 0.05, independent student <i>t</i>-test). Caregiver satisfaction with both study procedures was high after immediate assessment (n = 19 out of 22, 86.4% for AgF/KI and n = 19 out of 25, 76.0% for GIC application) and in 12 weeks of follow-up (n = 17 out of 20, 85.0% for AgF/KI and n = 22 out of 24, 91.6% for GIC application). However, the taste AgF/KI is more frequently considered not acceptable for the child (n = 10; 45%) than smell (n = 2; 9%). Interestingly, there was a statistically significant difference in caregivers’ preference toward alternative desensitisation treatment (tooth restoration coverage, desensitisation paste, stainless steel crown and fluoride varnish) in both treatment groups (<i>p</i> < 0.05, Mann–Whitney U test). <b>Conclusions:</b> Both GIC and AgF/KI applications can be considered acceptable approaches to reduce hypersensitivity in permanent molars affected by MIH both immediately and in long-term follow-up for schoolchildren based on caregivers’ assessments.https://www.mdpi.com/2039-7283/15/2/29hypersensitivitymolar incisor hypomineralisationglass-ionomer cementsilver fluorideSchiff score air sensitivity scale |
| spellingShingle | Ramiar Karim Walaa Ahmed Mohamed Baider Christian H. Splieth Julian Schmoeckel Comparison of Patient Acceptance and Caregiver Satisfaction of Glass-Ionomer Cement vs. Silver Fluoride/Potassium Iodide Application to Manage Molar Incisor Hypomineralisation Hypersensitivity Immediately and After 12 Weeks Clinics and Practice hypersensitivity molar incisor hypomineralisation glass-ionomer cement silver fluoride Schiff score air sensitivity scale |
| title | Comparison of Patient Acceptance and Caregiver Satisfaction of Glass-Ionomer Cement vs. Silver Fluoride/Potassium Iodide Application to Manage Molar Incisor Hypomineralisation Hypersensitivity Immediately and After 12 Weeks |
| title_full | Comparison of Patient Acceptance and Caregiver Satisfaction of Glass-Ionomer Cement vs. Silver Fluoride/Potassium Iodide Application to Manage Molar Incisor Hypomineralisation Hypersensitivity Immediately and After 12 Weeks |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Patient Acceptance and Caregiver Satisfaction of Glass-Ionomer Cement vs. Silver Fluoride/Potassium Iodide Application to Manage Molar Incisor Hypomineralisation Hypersensitivity Immediately and After 12 Weeks |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Patient Acceptance and Caregiver Satisfaction of Glass-Ionomer Cement vs. Silver Fluoride/Potassium Iodide Application to Manage Molar Incisor Hypomineralisation Hypersensitivity Immediately and After 12 Weeks |
| title_short | Comparison of Patient Acceptance and Caregiver Satisfaction of Glass-Ionomer Cement vs. Silver Fluoride/Potassium Iodide Application to Manage Molar Incisor Hypomineralisation Hypersensitivity Immediately and After 12 Weeks |
| title_sort | comparison of patient acceptance and caregiver satisfaction of glass ionomer cement vs silver fluoride potassium iodide application to manage molar incisor hypomineralisation hypersensitivity immediately and after 12 weeks |
| topic | hypersensitivity molar incisor hypomineralisation glass-ionomer cement silver fluoride Schiff score air sensitivity scale |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2039-7283/15/2/29 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ramiarkarim comparisonofpatientacceptanceandcaregiversatisfactionofglassionomercementvssilverfluoridepotassiumiodideapplicationtomanagemolarincisorhypomineralisationhypersensitivityimmediatelyandafter12weeks AT walaaahmed comparisonofpatientacceptanceandcaregiversatisfactionofglassionomercementvssilverfluoridepotassiumiodideapplicationtomanagemolarincisorhypomineralisationhypersensitivityimmediatelyandafter12weeks AT mohamedbaider comparisonofpatientacceptanceandcaregiversatisfactionofglassionomercementvssilverfluoridepotassiumiodideapplicationtomanagemolarincisorhypomineralisationhypersensitivityimmediatelyandafter12weeks AT christianhsplieth comparisonofpatientacceptanceandcaregiversatisfactionofglassionomercementvssilverfluoridepotassiumiodideapplicationtomanagemolarincisorhypomineralisationhypersensitivityimmediatelyandafter12weeks AT julianschmoeckel comparisonofpatientacceptanceandcaregiversatisfactionofglassionomercementvssilverfluoridepotassiumiodideapplicationtomanagemolarincisorhypomineralisationhypersensitivityimmediatelyandafter12weeks |