J F Tahmassebi1, L T Achol, S A Fayle. 1. Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Leeds Dental Institute, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9LU, UK, J.Tahmassebi@leeds.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to analyse the characteristics of comprehensive dental care provided under general anaesthesia (CDGA) and to review the additional treatment required by children over the 6 years subsequent to CDGA. METHOD: Information collected from hospital records for the 6-year period following the first CDGA included the types of dental treatment performed at CDGA, the return rates for follow-up appointments, further treatment required subsequent to CDGA and the types of dental treatment performed at repeat DGA. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 263 children, of whom 129 had a significant medical history, with mean age of 6.7 years. The results revealed that the waiting time for CDGA was significantly shorter in children who had a significant medical history, with 49% being admitted for CDGA within 3 months of pre-GA assessment, as compared to 29% of healthy children. 67% of children had follow-up care recorded, with a slightly higher proportion of children with significant medical history returning for follow-up [70% (90/129)] compared with 65% (87/134) of healthy children. Re-treatment rates were 34% (88/263), the majority of cases being treated under local analgesia (42/88). 34 of 263 children had repeat DGA (12.9%). Of these 71% (24/34) were children with significant medical history. The mean age at repeat DGA was 9 years. In 25 of 34 children (74%), repeat DGA was due to trauma, oral pathology, supernumerary removal, hypomineralized teeth or new caries of previously sound or un-erupted teeth at CDGA. The ratio of extraction over restoration (excluding fissure sealants) performed at repeat DGA was 2.8, compared with the ratio of 1.3 in the initial CDGA. CONCLUSIONS: There was a higher ratio of extraction over restorations at the repeat DGA. This suggests that the prescribed treatments at repeat DGA were more aggressive as compared to the initial CDGA in 1997. The majority of the treatment required at repeat DGA was to treat new disease.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to analyse the characteristics of comprehensive dental care provided under general anaesthesia (CDGA) and to review the additional treatment required by children over the 6 years subsequent to CDGA. METHOD: Information collected from hospital records for the 6-year period following the first CDGA included the types of dental treatment performed at CDGA, the return rates for follow-up appointments, further treatment required subsequent to CDGA and the types of dental treatment performed at repeat DGA. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 263 children, of whom 129 had a significant medical history, with mean age of 6.7 years. The results revealed that the waiting time for CDGA was significantly shorter in children who had a significant medical history, with 49% being admitted for CDGA within 3 months of pre-GA assessment, as compared to 29% of healthy children. 67% of children had follow-up care recorded, with a slightly higher proportion of children with significant medical history returning for follow-up [70% (90/129)] compared with 65% (87/134) of healthy children. Re-treatment rates were 34% (88/263), the majority of cases being treated under local analgesia (42/88). 34 of 263 children had repeat DGA (12.9%). Of these 71% (24/34) were children with significant medical history. The mean age at repeat DGA was 9 years. In 25 of 34 children (74%), repeat DGA was due to trauma, oral pathology, supernumerary removal, hypomineralized teeth or new caries of previously sound or un-erupted teeth at CDGA. The ratio of extraction over restoration (excluding fissure sealants) performed at repeat DGA was 2.8, compared with the ratio of 1.3 in the initial CDGA. CONCLUSIONS: There was a higher ratio of extraction over restorations at the repeat DGA. This suggests that the prescribed treatments at repeat DGA were more aggressive as compared to the initial CDGA in 1997. The majority of the treatment required at repeat DGA was to treat new disease.
Authors: Viktoria Karl; Konstantin Johannes Scholz; Karl-Anton Hiller; Isabelle Tabenski; Frederike Schenke; Wolfgang Buchalla; Christian Kirschneck; Katrin Bekes; Fabian Cieplik Journal: Children (Basel) Date: 2022-06-08
Authors: Romana Koberova Ivancakova; Jakub Suchanek; Flora Kovacsova; Eva Cermakova; Vlasta Merglova Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-07-15 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Peter Arrow; Rob McPhee; David Atkinson; Tamara Mackean; Sanjeewa Kularatna; Utsana Tonmukayakul; David Brennan; David Palmer; Soniya Nanda; Lisa Jamieson Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2018-07-25