Comparison of Patient Acceptance and Caregiver Satisfaction of Glass-Ionomer Cement vs. Silver Fluoride/Potassium Iodide Application to Manage Molar Incisor Hypomineralisation Hypersensitivity Immediately and After 12 Weeks

Aim: To compare caregiver satisfaction and children’s acceptance of silver fluoride/potassium iodide (AgF+KI) treatment (Riva Star Aqua^®, SDI Limited, Victoria, Australia) and glass-ionomer cement (GIC) application (Ionostar Plus + Easy Glaze, VOCO, Germany) in reducing hypersensitivity in permanent molars affected by molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH) with the MIH treatment need index (MIH-TNI) 3 and 4 immediately after its application and after 12 weeks. Materials and Methods: This prospective, comparative, clinical study recruited schoolchildren with at least one hypersensitive MIH molar with a Schiff cold air sensitivity score (SCASS) of 2 and 3. Caregivers in both groups (AgF+KI and GIC + glaze) answered a questionnaire (5-Point Likert Scale) regarding the perception of the treatment immediately (15 min post application) and in the 12 weeks follow-up. Children’s behaviour during both applications was assessed using FBRS (Frankl Behaviour Rating Scale). Results: A total number of 47 children (n = 22 for AgF/KI and n = 25 for GIC) with a mean age of 8.6 ± 1.42 were recruited. A high proportion of the children in both arms (n = 40 out of 44; 90.1%) reported a reduction in hypersensitivity in the last 12 weeks. On average, children (n = 39; FBRS ≥ 3) in both groups showed positive behaviour, with a significantly more definitely positive behaviour in the GIC group (p < 0.05, independent student t-test). Caregiver satisfaction with both study procedures was high after immediate assessment (n = 19 out of 22, 86.4% for AgF/KI and n = 19 out of 25, 76.0% for GIC application) and in 12 weeks of follow-up (n = 17 out of 20, 85.0% for AgF/KI and n = 22 out of 24, 91.6% for GIC application). However, the taste AgF/KI is more frequently considered not acceptable for the child (n = 10; 45%) than smell (n = 2; 9%). Interestingly, there was a statistically significant difference in caregivers’ preference toward alternative desensitisation treatment (tooth restoration coverage, desensitisation paste, stainless steel crown and fluoride varnish) in both treatment groups (p < 0.05, Mann–Whitney U test). Conclusions: Both GIC and AgF/KI applications can be considered acceptable approaches to reduce hypersensitivity in permanent molars affected by MIH both immediately and in long-term follow-up for schoolchildren based on caregivers’ assessments.