ABSTRACT Objective: To assess children's self-reported distress during dental procedures and investigate risk factors. Material and Methods: A total of 163 children (3–10 years old) were included from a clinical trial on diagnostic strategies for evaluating restorations in primary teeth. Treatment plans were elaborated based on the clinical examination performed at the baseline of the study. Dentists performed 742 dental procedures, and an external evaluator collected children's self-reported distress through the Wong Backer Facial Scale (WBFS) and dentists' opinions about children's behavior during the treatment. Kruskal-Wallis Test was performed to compare the distress and the dentists' perception of the different dental procedures, and multilevel ordered logistic regression analysis was conducted to the evaluate association between explanatory variables and the outcomes. Results: More complex procedures caused more distress in children (p=0.017), with a 5.5 times higher risk than simple operative treatments. Similarly, dentists reported children's worse behavior (p<0.001). Older children (older than 7 years) reported less distress than younger children (OR 0.52; CI 0.30-0.87; p=0.014). Patients reported greater distress in the first consultations, reducing the chance of higher scores by 16% in the next interventions. Conclusion: Children experience higher levels of distress during their first treatment appointments. More complex operative procedures and the child's age below 7 years were risk factors associated with greater distress during dental treatment. Objective childrens s selfreported self Methods 16 3–10 310 3 10 (3–1 old teeth study 74 WBFS (WBFS KruskalWallis Kruskal Wallis outcomes Results p=0.017, p0017 p p=0.017 , 0 017 (p=0.017) 55 5 5. treatments Similarly p<0.001. p0001 p<0.001 . 001 (p<0.001) older OR 0.52 052 52 0.300.87 030087 0.30 0.87 30 87 0.30-0.87 p=0.014. p0014 p=0.014 014 p=0.014) consultations interventions Conclusion appointments childs child 1 3–1 31 (3– p001 p=0.01 01 (p=0.017 p000 p<0.00 00 (p<0.001 0.5 05 300 0.300.8 03008 030 0.3 087 0.8 8 0.30-0.8 3– (3 p00 p=0.0 (p=0.01 p<0.0 (p<0.00 0. 0.300. 0300 03 08 0.30-0. ( p0 p=0. (p=0.0 p<0. (p<0.0 0.300 0.30-0 p=0 (p=0. p<0 (p<0. 0.30- p= (p=0 p< (p<0 (p= (p< (p

O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a microdureza Knoop de três cimentos de ionômero de vidro de alta viscosidade: G1 - Ketac Molar; G2 - Ketac Molar Easymix (3M ESPE) and G3 - Magic Glass ART (Vigodent). Adicionalmente, como um co-objetivo, três diferentes formas de inserção do Ketac Molar Easymix foram avaliadas: G4 - espátula conventional; G5 - seringa comercial (Centrix) e G6 - seringa de baixo custo. Dez corpos de prova de cada grupo foram preparados e a microdureza Knoop foi determinada com 5 indentações por espécime com o aparelho HM-124 (25 g/30 s tempo de identação) após 24 h, 1 e 2 semanas. Durante todo o período de teste, os espécimes foram mantidos em parafina líquida a 37ºC. Diferenças estatísticas significantes foram encontradas entre G3 e G1 / G2 (ANOVA a 2 critérios e teste de Tukey post hoc; p<0,01). Não houve diferença nos resultados no que se refere às diferentes formas de inserção. O cimento de ionômero de vidro Magic Glass ART apresenta os valores mais baixos de dureza enquanto o método de inserção não influencia nos resultados de dureza.

The aim of this study was to assess the Knoop hardness of three high viscous glass ionomer cements: G1 - Ketac Molar; G2 - Ketac Molar Easymix (3M ESPE) and G3 - Magic Glass ART (Vigodent). As a parallel goal, three different methods for insertion of Ketac Molar Easymix were tested: G4 - conventional spatula; G5 - commercial syringe (Centrix) and G6 - low-cost syringe. Ten specimens of each group were prepared and the Knoop hardness was determined 5 times on each specimen with a HM-124 hardness machine (25 g/30 s dwell time) after 24 h, 1 and 2 weeks. During the entire test period, the specimens were stored in liquid paraffin at 37ºC. Significant differences were found between G3 and G1/G2 (two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test; p<0.01). There was no significant difference in the results among the multiple ways of insertion. The glass ionomer cement Magic Glass ART showed the lowest hardness, while the insertion technique had no significant influence on hardness.