International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2018 ) > List of Articles


An In Vivo Comparative Evaluation of Dental Anxiety Level and Clinical Success Rate of Composite and Multicolored Compomers in 6 to 12 years of Children

Divyata Kohli, Chandrashekhar M Badakar, Prachi J Thakkar

Keywords : Anxiety, Children, Coloured compomers, Composites

Citation Information : Kohli D, Badakar CM, Thakkar PJ. An In Vivo Comparative Evaluation of Dental Anxiety Level and Clinical Success Rate of Composite and Multicolored Compomers in 6 to 12 years of Children. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2018; 11 (6):483-489.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1562

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-04-2012

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; The Author(s).


Background: Pediatric dentistry is not just about treating the tooth, but it also involves giving an overall comprehensive treatment to the child. Children like different colors and when the child is allowed to select the color of the restoration, it will positively motivate the child to accept dental treatment. Aim: The aim of our study was to evaluate and compare the clinical success rate of composite and multicolored compomer restorations and dental anxiety level in children. Materials and methods: A total of 60 samples equally divided into two study groups by of split-mouth design. In the control group, subjects received composites and in experimental group, they received colored compomers. The dental behavior was assessed using the Frankl behavior rating scale for both the groups. Dental anxiety was checked in the patients using visual analogue scale (VAS) before and after the treatment for both the groups. Children were recalled for follow up at 1, 3 and 6 months to evaluate clinical success rate amongst control and experimental group and results were subjected to statistical analysis. Results: Colored compomer proved to reduce the anxiety in the child and had a better behavioral response and positive attitude. Both restorative materials had comparable clinical success rates. Conclusion: At 6 months follow-up evaluation colored compomer restorative material showing promising with similar properties like that of composites with the added advantage of multicolors and can be considered as the new restorative material in the child dentistry. Clinical significance: Colored compomers are known to be excellent alternative restorative materials for restoration of teeth in children as they aid in behavior modification and good compliance from the patient.

PDF Share
  1. Arora V, Arora P, Srivastava N, et al. Multicoloured Restorations for Pediatric Dental Patients. Br J Appl Sci Technol 2014; 4(28):4014-4025.
  2. Akbay Oba A, Þaroðlu Sönmez I, et al. Clinical evaluation of a colored compomer in primary molars. Med Princ Pract 2008; 18(1):31-34.
  3. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Guideline on Behaviour Guidance for the Pediatric Dental Patient. Pediatr Dent 2015: 37(6):130-193.
  4. Buchanan H, Niven N. Validation of a facial image scale to assess child dental anxiety. Int J Paed Dent. 2002;12(1):47-52.
  5. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 1980;30(4):347-358.
  6. Zimmerli B, Strub M, Jeger F, et al. Composite materials: Composition, properties and clinical applications. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 2010;120(11):972-979.
  7. Khodadadi E, Esmaeili B, Valizadegan S, et al. Evaluation of Gingival Microleakage of Colored Compomers in Primary Teeth: an in vitro Study. J Dentomaxill Radiol Pathol Surg. 2016;5(2):11-16.
  8. Ertugrul F, Cogulu D, Özdemir Y, et al. Comparison of conventional versus colored compomers for class II restorations in primary molars: A 12-month clinical study. Med Princi Pract 2010;19(2):148-152.
  9. Goldstein K. Some experimental observations: The influence of colors on the functions of the organism. Occup Ther Rehabil 1942; 21(3):147-151.
  10. Croll TP, Helpin ML, Donly KJ. Multi-colored dual-cured compomer. Pediatr Dent 2004;26(3):273-276.
  11. Kramer N, Frankenberger R. Compomers in restorative therapy of children: a literature review. Int J Paediatr Dent 2007;17(1):2-9.
  12. Hse KMY, Wei SHY. Clinical evaluation of compomer in primary teeth: 1-year results. J Am Dent Assoc 1997;128(8):1088-1096.
  13. Duggal MS, Toumba KJ, Sharma NK. Clinical performance of a compomer and amalgam for the interproximal restoration of primary molars: a 24-month evaluation. Br Dent J 2002;193(6):339-342.
  14. Kavvadia K, Kakaboura A, Vanderas AP, et al. Clinical evaluation of a compomer and an amalgam in primary teeth class II restorations: a 2-year comparative study. Pediatr Dent 2004; 26(3):245-250.
  15. Donly KJ, Segura A, Kanellis M, et al. Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1999;130(10):1459-1466.
  16. Papagiannoulis L, Kakaboura A, Pantaleon F, et al. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) in class II restorations of primary teeth: a two-year follow-up study. Pediatr Dent 1999;21(4):232-235.
  17. Andersson-Wenckert IE, Folkesson UH, et al. Durability of a polyacid-modified composite resin (compomer) in primary molars. A multicenter study. Acta Odont Scand 1997;55(4): 255-260.
  18. Peters T, Roeters J, Frankenmolen F. Clinical evaluation of Dyract in primary molars: 1-year results. Am J Dent 1996; 9(2): 83-88.
  19. Kilpatrick NM. Durability of restorations in primary molars. J Dent 1992;21(2):67-73.
  20. Barr-Agholme M, Oden A, Dahllof G, et al. A two-year clinical study of light-cured composite and amalgam restorations in primary molars. Dent Mater 1991;7(4): 230-233.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.