Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33247395›Full record

Trial reportEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2021

The use of interactive distraction technique to manage gagging during impression taking in children: a single-blind, randomised controlled trial.

U B Dixit, L Moorthy

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Effectiveness of a play-based distraction technique in reducing gag reflex during intraoral periapical radiography in children: a randomised crossover trial.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

U B DixitDepartment of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, DY Patil University-School of Dentistry, Sector 7, Nerul, Navi Mumbai, India. umadixit2000@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9748-8310
L MoorthyDepartment of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, DY Patil University-School of Dentistry, Sector 7, Nerul, Navi Mumbai, India.
D.Y. Patil University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the effect of interactive distraction technique on the severity of gagging and success of impression taking in children between age 5 and 10 years.

methodsThis single blind, randomised controlled trial recruited 48 children aged 5-10 years requiring maxillary impressions. Selected children were randomly allocated to one of the two groups: (1) Test group, use of interactive distraction, and (2) Control group, no use of interactive distraction, during impression taking. Dental anxiety was scored using Facial Image Scale (FIS) before and after impression taking. Gagging-related Impression Success Scale (GISS) and Gagging Severity Index (GSI) were recorded by a blinded assessor. Nonparametric tests were used to compare the variables between the groups.

resultsMaxillary impressions were successfully recorded in all children in the Test group; either with no gag (87.5%) or with gag (12.5%). In 33.3% control children impressions could not be recorded. Statistically significant, strong association was found between the interactive distraction and GISS (p = 0.003, Cramer's V = 0.32). Mean GSI and post-impression FIS scores were significantly lesser in the Test group (p = 0.029 and p = 0.048, respectively). Significant increase in the mean FIS scores was observed after recording impression in the Control group. Post-impression FIS showed significant positive correlation with GSI (Test: p = 0.003, Control: p = 0.009) and significant inverse correlation with GISS (Test: p = 0.003, Control: p = 0.01).

conclusionInteractive distraction technique used in this study is a simple, non-invasive and cost-effective method to effectively manage gagging and successfully record a maxillary impression in children between age 5 and 10 years.

Indexed as

Dental Impression TechniqueGaggingMaxillaChildChild, PreschoolFaceHumansSingle-Blind MethodDental anxietyDistractionGaggingGag reflexMaxillary impression

Identifiers

PMID33247395
OpenAlexW3107462988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.