Acceptance of Parents toward Hand-over-mouth Exercise and Other Behavior Management Techniques for Pediatric Dental Care in the 21st Century: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies.

Q3 Dentistry International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-19 DOI:10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2978
Ashwin Jawdekar, Farheen Tafti, Sayali Deolikar, Laresh Mistry
{"title":"Acceptance of Parents toward Hand-over-mouth Exercise and Other Behavior Management Techniques for Pediatric Dental Care in the 21st Century: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies.","authors":"Ashwin Jawdekar, Farheen Tafti, Sayali Deolikar, Laresh Mistry","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2978","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hand-over-mouth exercise (HOME) is an aversive technique for child behavior management in a dental office. HOME has been omitted from various guidelines and certain teaching curricula due to legal and ethical issues. This systematic review meta-analysis (SRMA) was undertaken to understand the acceptance of parents toward HOME in comparison with that of other behavior management techniques (BMTs).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This SRMA compared parental acceptance for HOME and other BMTs from observational studies reported in the literature from 1<sup>st</sup> January 2000, to date.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Two authors independently searched data from the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and others. Twenty-one studies remained in the systematic review, of which eleven could be included in the meta-analysis. Based on the summary findings of 1,034 participants from 10 studies, we compared parents' acceptance for HOME vs other BMTs [voice control (VC), tell-show-do (TSD), physical restraint-active (PR-A), physical restraint-passive (PR-P), parental separation (PS), conscious sedation (CS), general anesthesia (GA), oral premedication (OP), and positive reinforcement (PR)]. Data analyses were carried out using RevMan 5.3. The Joanna Briggs Risk of Bias (JB-ROB) tool for cross-sectional analytical studies was used for bias assessment. A funnel plot was used to detect publication bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 20 studies, nine studies reported higher acceptance for GA than HOME; seven reported higher acceptance for HOME than GA, and the remaining four appeared inconclusive. The meta-analysis results (eleven studies) based on forest plots with fixed effects models in terms of OR (CI) indicated no statistically significant difference in the acceptance for HOME vs GA [1.03 (0.84, 1.25)], CS [0.77 (0.60, 1.00)], and PR-P [1.21 (0.92, 1.59)]. In comparison with the acceptance for HOME, CS (NO) [0.65 (0.51, 0.84)], VC [0.48 (0.39, 0.59)], TSD [0.04 (0.03, 0.05)], PR-A [0.65 (0.50, 0.84)], PS [0.28 (0.22, 0.36)], OP [0.55 (0.39, 0.78)], distraction [0.11 (0.09, 0.15)], and PR [0.06 (0.04, 0.08)] were preferred; these being statistically significant. Heterogeneity values (I<sup>2</sup>) for all comparisons were high (above 80%), with the exception of one (comparison of HOME vs OP) having 50%. ROB across studies was judged to be moderate. The publication bias using the funnel plot analysis for all studies on the basis of SE [Log (OR)] showed marked and fairly equal dispersion on either side of the central line.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No statistically significant difference was seen in the acceptance for HOME vs GA, CS, and PR-P. BMTs such as TSD, VC, PR-A, PS, CS (NO), OP, distraction, and PR were preferred to HOME; the difference in acceptance being statistically significant. The differences in acceptance between HOME vs CS (NO) and PR-A did not remain statistically significant when random effects models were used. The heterogeneity was high, the ROB was moderate, and the publication bias was minimal.</p><p><strong>How to cite this article: </strong>Jawdekar A, Tafti F, Deolikar S, <i>et al.</i> Acceptance of Parents toward Hand-over-mouth Exercise and Other Behavior Management Techniques for Pediatric Dental Care in the 21st Century: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024;17(11):1302-1319.</p>","PeriodicalId":36045,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry","volume":"17 11","pages":"1302-1319"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11703757/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2978","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Hand-over-mouth exercise (HOME) is an aversive technique for child behavior management in a dental office. HOME has been omitted from various guidelines and certain teaching curricula due to legal and ethical issues. This systematic review meta-analysis (SRMA) was undertaken to understand the acceptance of parents toward HOME in comparison with that of other behavior management techniques (BMTs).

Objectives: This SRMA compared parental acceptance for HOME and other BMTs from observational studies reported in the literature from 1st January 2000, to date.

Methodology: Two authors independently searched data from the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and others. Twenty-one studies remained in the systematic review, of which eleven could be included in the meta-analysis. Based on the summary findings of 1,034 participants from 10 studies, we compared parents' acceptance for HOME vs other BMTs [voice control (VC), tell-show-do (TSD), physical restraint-active (PR-A), physical restraint-passive (PR-P), parental separation (PS), conscious sedation (CS), general anesthesia (GA), oral premedication (OP), and positive reinforcement (PR)]. Data analyses were carried out using RevMan 5.3. The Joanna Briggs Risk of Bias (JB-ROB) tool for cross-sectional analytical studies was used for bias assessment. A funnel plot was used to detect publication bias.

Results: Of 20 studies, nine studies reported higher acceptance for GA than HOME; seven reported higher acceptance for HOME than GA, and the remaining four appeared inconclusive. The meta-analysis results (eleven studies) based on forest plots with fixed effects models in terms of OR (CI) indicated no statistically significant difference in the acceptance for HOME vs GA [1.03 (0.84, 1.25)], CS [0.77 (0.60, 1.00)], and PR-P [1.21 (0.92, 1.59)]. In comparison with the acceptance for HOME, CS (NO) [0.65 (0.51, 0.84)], VC [0.48 (0.39, 0.59)], TSD [0.04 (0.03, 0.05)], PR-A [0.65 (0.50, 0.84)], PS [0.28 (0.22, 0.36)], OP [0.55 (0.39, 0.78)], distraction [0.11 (0.09, 0.15)], and PR [0.06 (0.04, 0.08)] were preferred; these being statistically significant. Heterogeneity values (I2) for all comparisons were high (above 80%), with the exception of one (comparison of HOME vs OP) having 50%. ROB across studies was judged to be moderate. The publication bias using the funnel plot analysis for all studies on the basis of SE [Log (OR)] showed marked and fairly equal dispersion on either side of the central line.

Conclusion: No statistically significant difference was seen in the acceptance for HOME vs GA, CS, and PR-P. BMTs such as TSD, VC, PR-A, PS, CS (NO), OP, distraction, and PR were preferred to HOME; the difference in acceptance being statistically significant. The differences in acceptance between HOME vs CS (NO) and PR-A did not remain statistically significant when random effects models were used. The heterogeneity was high, the ROB was moderate, and the publication bias was minimal.

How to cite this article: Jawdekar A, Tafti F, Deolikar S, et al. Acceptance of Parents toward Hand-over-mouth Exercise and Other Behavior Management Techniques for Pediatric Dental Care in the 21st Century: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024;17(11):1302-1319.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
21世纪儿童牙科护理中家长对手捂口运动和其他行为管理技术的接受程度:观察性研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析
背景:手盖口练习(HOME)是牙科诊所儿童行为管理的一种厌恶技术。由于法律和道德问题,HOME在各种指导方针和某些教学课程中被省略。本系统回顾荟萃分析(SRMA)旨在了解家长对HOME的接受程度,并与其他行为管理技术(BMTs)进行比较。目的:本SRMA比较了自2000年1月1日至今的观察性研究中父母对HOME和其他bmt的接受程度。方法:两位作者分别从Cochrane图书馆、PubMed、谷歌Scholar、Semantic Scholar等网站独立检索数据。21项研究保留在系统评价中,其中11项可以纳入meta分析。基于来自10项研究的1,034名参与者的总结结果,我们比较了父母对HOME与其他BMTs的接受程度[语音控制(VC),告诉-展示-做(TSD),身体约束-主动(PR- a),身体约束-被动(PR- p),父母分离(PS),意识镇静(CS),全身麻醉(GA),口服预用药(OP)和正强化(PR)]。数据分析采用RevMan 5.3软件。采用横截面分析研究的Joanna Briggs Risk of Bias (JB-ROB)工具进行偏倚评估。采用漏斗图检测发表偏倚。结果:在20项研究中,9项研究报告GA的接受度高于HOME;七个报告HOME的接受度高于GA,其余四个似乎没有定论。基于固定效应模型的森林样地的meta分析结果(11项研究)显示,HOME与GA[1.03(0.84, 1.25)]、CS[0.77(0.60, 1.00)]和PR-P[1.21(0.92, 1.59)]的接受度无统计学差异。与HOME的接受度相比,CS (NO)[0.65(0.51, 0.84)]、VC[0.48(0.39, 0.59)]、TSD[0.04(0.03, 0.05)]、PR- a[0.65(0.50, 0.84)]、PS[0.28(0.22, 0.36)]、OP[0.55(0.39, 0.78)]、分心[0.11(0.09,0.15)]、PR[0.06(0.04, 0.08)]较受欢迎;这些在统计上是显著的。所有比较的异质性值(I2)都很高(超过80%),只有一个(HOME与OP的比较)的异质性值为50%。所有研究的ROB被判定为中度。在SE [Log (OR)]的基础上,使用漏斗图分析所有研究的发表偏倚显示,在中心线两侧有明显且相当相等的分散。结论:HOME与GA、CS和PR-P的接受度无统计学差异。TSD、VC、PR- a、PS、CS (NO)、OP、distraction、PR等BMTs优先于HOME;接受度的差异有统计学意义。当使用随机效应模型时,HOME与CS (NO)和PR-A之间的接受度差异没有统计学意义。异质性高,罗伯中等,发表偏倚最小。本文引用方式:Jawdekar A, Tafti F, Deolikar S等。21世纪儿童牙科护理中家长对手捂口运动和其他行为管理技术的接受程度:观察性研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析中华临床儿科杂志;2017;17(11):1302-1319。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
135
期刊最新文献
Clinical Performance of Two Resin Composite Materials in Class II Cavities in Primary Molars: An Observational Study. An In Vivo Study to Compare and Evaluate the Antimicrobial Efficacy and pH Change of GC Tooth Mousse and CurodontTM Protect against Streptococcus mutans. Bite Force Distribution and Occlusal Adjustment in Stainless Steel Crowns and BioFlx Crowns of Children Aged 4-8 Years. Clinical Assessment of a Newer Resin-based Bioactive Restorative Cement on Class II Cavities of Primary Molars: A Comparative Analysis. Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Photodynamic Therapy in Root Canal Treatment of Primary Molars: A 15-month Randomized Clinical Trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1