BACKGROUND Perception of pain associated with intraoral radiography in pediatric patients was evaluated through statistical comparisons of data obtained using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Raiting Scale (WBFPRS) and visual analog scale (VAS) scoring. METHODS A total of 75 pediatric patients aged 6-12 years were included in this study. Simulations of each of three radiological methods (analog films, CCD sensor and phosphorus plates) were performed on 25 pediatric patients. Following the simulations, the meaning of each facial expression on the WBFPRS and the numbers on the VAS were explained to each child. For the comparison between groups, the homogeneity of the variances was tested with Levene's test; because the variances were not homogeneous, Welch's test was used. Tamhane's T2 test was used because the homogeneity assumption was not provided to determine the source of the difference between the groups. RESULTS When the conventional method was compared to the PSPL (photostimulable phosphor luminescence) method, no significant differences were noted in either the WBFPRS or VAS results (p >0.05). The results obtained from both of the scales were significantly different between the conventional method and the CCD sensor method (p < 0.05). When the PSPL and CCD sensors were compared, a significant difference was observed for the WBFPRS (p < 0.05). It was found the highest level of pain scores when used the CCD sensor method than the analog film and PSPL methods (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS It is expected that digital radiographic techniques will be improved in the future and that their disadvantages will be eliminated, resulting in imaging devices that are more comfortable for pediatric patients.

中文翻译：

---

儿科牙科患者三种口内射线照相技术的模拟：使用VAS和Wong-Baker FACES疼痛发作量表的主观舒适度评估。

背景技术通过对使用Wong-Baker FACES疼痛发作量表（WBFPRS）和视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分获得的数据进行统计比较，评估了小儿患者与口内放射照相相关的疼痛感。方法本研究共纳入75名6-12岁的儿科患者。对25名儿科患者进行了三种放射学方法（模拟胶片，CCD传感器和磷板）的模拟。在模拟之后，向每个孩子解释了WBFPRS上每个面部表情的含义以及VAS上的数字。为了进行组之间的比较，使用Levene检验检验了方差的均一性。因为方差不是均匀的，所以使用了韦尔奇检验。塔姆汉 之所以使用T2检验是因为未提供同质性假设来确定组之间差异的来源。结果当将常规方法与PSPL（可光激发磷光体发光）方法进行比较时，WBFPRS或VAS结果均未发现明显差异（p> 0.05）。从两种量表获得的结果在常规方法和CCD传感器方法之间均存在显着差异（p <0.05）。当比较PSPL和CCD传感器时，发现WBFPRS有显着差异（p <0.05）。发现使用CCD传感器方法时的疼痛评分最高，优于模拟胶片和PSPL方法（p <0.05）。