الفهرس 
Introduction…Only 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 127 |  |  |
| | | from | 127 | | |
Abstract
Summary
SDF promises to be a therapy that could benefit many children. In addition of the guidelines for its use published by the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD), the WHO 2016 report on Public Health Interventions against ECC, concluded that SDF can arrest dentine carious lesions in primary teeth. It recommends its use as an alternative procedure for tertiary prevention to reduce the negative impact of caries by restoring function and reducing disease-related complications and to improve the quality of life for children with early childhood caries.
The present study was carried out on eighty-two children and their parents. Children were recruited based on certain inclusion criteria after signing a written informed consent by their parents. They were divided into group 1& group 2. For group (1) each child received SDF only after excavation of soft carious debris for at least one anterior and one posterior tooth. Parental acceptance was measured using Likert scale which is graded from 1 to 5 (1.Strongly disagree 2.Disagree 3.Neutral 4.Agree 5.Strongly agree).For group (2) each child received SDF by the same procedures and parental acceptance was measured ,then GIC was used to restore these carious lesions after application of SDF. Parental acceptance was assessed once again after application of GIC. Intergroup and intragroup comparisons were carried out. Results revealed that in anterior teeth parents in group 1(A) (53.7%) and group 2(A) (100%) respectively agreed to the treatment and the difference between both groups was statistically significant.
For posterior teeth, parents in group 1(P) (60.9%) and group 2(P) (97.5%) respectively agreed to the treatment and the difference between both groups was statistically significant.
Intragroup comparison group 1(A) (SDF only) agreed to the colour of SDF (acceptance of colour) by (53.7%) and agreed to the overall treatment of SDF (perception of SDF treatment) by (90.2%) while group 1(P) showed acceptance of colour by (60.9%) and perception of treatment by (100%). There was no statistical difference between anterior and posterior teeth for both acceptance and perception. This shows that even the acceptance of SDF colour is not very high but the perception and awareness for SDF treatment is high.
Intra group comparison for group 2 showed that after application of SDF parents in group 2 (A) agreed by (24.4%) and 2(P) agreed by (31.7%). After application of GIC parents in group 2 (A) agreed by (100%) and parents in group 2(P) agreed by (97.5%). The difference between group 2(A) before &after application of GI was statistically significant (p<0.001) and the difference between group 2(P) before &after application of GI was statistically significant (p<0.001).
By analyzing these results, it showed that there is a parental acceptance for SDF for both groups but it is much higher when SDF black stain is masked by GI. Parental acceptance was also affected by some factors as parental gender and family income.