Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 11, Issue 6, pp 294–297 | Cite as

Management of Carious Primary Molar Teeth by UK Postgraduates in Paediatric Dentistry

  • J. I. FoleyEmail author
Short communication

Abstract

AIM: To assess the treatment preferences amongst UK postgraduates (PG) in Paediatric Dentistry for a symbolic child with sample case history of differing caries severity in a primary molar tooth. METHODS: All Paediatric Dentistry PG were contacted by e-mail and asked to participate in an on-line structured questionnaire. The survey described four different case scenarios of a 5-year-old child, presenting with a mesio-occlusal cavity in tooth 85 with varying symptoms and signs. Treatment options were listed and participants asked to select the single most preferred treatment for each case. The same scenarios were also presented for both non-anxious and dentally-anxious children and differences were analysed by Chi2 analysis. RESULTS: Responses were received from 38/59 (F: 31; M: 7) PGs. The preformed metal crown (PMC) with Hall technique was selected as the option for patients with no indication of pulpal involvement by 4/38 and 20/38 for non-anxious and dentally-anxious patients respectively (Chi2 = 27.56, P = 0.001, 1 dof). For a tooth with signs of pulpal involvement or symptoms the options selected were (non-anxious, dentally-anxious): zinc-oxide eugenol pulpecotomy and PMC 8/38, 2/38 (Chi2 = 9.85, P = 0.002, 1 dof); local analgesia extraction 15/38, 2/38 (Chi2 = 27.22, P = 0.001, 1 dof) and extraction under a general anaesthetic 0/38, 16/38 (Χ2 = 42.00, P = 0.001, 1dof). CONCLUSION: There was no consistency of response by PGs in Paediatric Dentistry within the UK. The Hall technique appeared to be a favoured option for treatment of an asymptomatic carious primary molar tooth in dentally-anxious child patients. Extraction was preferred for those with pulpal involvement for both non-anxious and dentally-anxious patients, although the suggested mode of extraction differed.

Key words

Dental Caries Graduate Dental Education 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Casas MJ, Kenny DJ, Johnston DH, Judd PL. Long-term outcomes of primary molar ferric sulfate pulpotomy and root canal therapy. Pediatr Dent 2004;26:44–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Creasy JE, Mines P, Sweet M. Surgical trends among endodontists: the results of a web-based survey. J Endod 2009;35:30–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Duggal M. Providing children with the quality dental care they deserve. Community Dent Health 2006;23:66–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Evans DJP, Southwick CAP, Foley J, et al. The Hall technique: a pilot trial of a novel use of preformed metal crowns for managing carious primary teeth. http://www.dundee.ac.uk/tuith/Articles/rt03.htm 2000.
  5. Fayle SA, Welbury RR, Roberts JF. British Society of Paediatric Dentistry: a policy document on management of caries in the primary dentition. Int J Paediatr Dent 2001;11:153–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Foley J. Alternative treatment strategies for carious primary teeth: an overview of the evidence. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2006;7:73–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hosey MT. UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry. Managing anxious children: the use of conscious sedation in paediatric dentistry. Int J Paediatr Dent 2002;12:359–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Information and Statistics Division Scotland. NHS Scotland Dental Services Statistics. Edinburgh. 2009Google Scholar
  9. Innes NP, Evans DJ, Stirrups DR. The Hall Technique; a randomized controlled clinical trial of a novel method of managing carious primary molars in general dental practice: acceptability of the technique and outcomes at 23 months. BMC Oral Health 2007a;7:18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Innes NP, Ricketts DN, Evans DJ. Preformed metal crowns for decayed primary molar teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007b:CD005512.Google Scholar
  11. Lee M, Winkler J, Hartwell G, Stewart J, Caine R. Current trends in endodontic practice: emergency treatments and technological armamentarium. J Endod 2009;35:35–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pine CM, Harris RV, Burnside G, Merrett MC. An investigation of the relationship between untreated decayed teeth and dental sepsis in 5-year-old children. Br Dent J 2006;200:45–7; discussion 29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pitts NB, Evans DJ, Nugent ZJ. The dental caries experience of 5-year-old children in Great Britain. Surveys coordinated by the British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry in 1999/2000. Community Dent Health 2001;18:49–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Pitts NB, Boyles J, Nugent ZJ, Thomas N, Pine CM. The dental caries experience of 5-year-old children in Great Britain (2005/6). Surveys co-ordinated by the British Association for the study of community dentistry. Community Dent Health 2007;24:59–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Ricketts DN, Kidd EA, Innes N, Clarkson J. Complete or ultraconservative removal of decayed tissue in unfilled teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;3:CD003808.Google Scholar
  16. Roberts JF, Sherriff M. The fate and survival of amalgam and preformed crown molar restorations placed in a specialist paediatric dental practice. Br Dent J 1990;169:237–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rodd HD, Waterhouse PJ, Fuks AB, Fayle SA, Moffat MA. Pulp therapy for primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent 2006;16 Suppl 1:15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tickle M, Milsom K, King D, Kearney-Mitchell P, Blinkhorn A. The fate of the carious primary teeth of children who regularly attend the general dental service. Br Dent J 2002;192:219–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tickle M. Improving the oral health of young children through an evidence-based approach. Community Dent Health 2006;23:2–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Tran C, Gussy M, Kilpatrick N. Pathways to emergency dental care: An exploratory study. EurArch Paediatr Dent 2010;11:97–100.Google Scholar
  21. Welbury RR, Walls AW, Murray JJ, McCabe JF. The 5-year results of a clinical trial comparing a glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement restoration with an amalgam restoration. Br Dent J 1991;170:177–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. Paediatric DentistryUniversity of Aberdeen Dental School and HospitalForesterhill, AberdeenScotland

Personalised recommendations