Julia Jockusch1, Werner Hopfenmüller2, Ronald Ettinger3, Ina Nitschke4,5. 1. Clinic of General, Special Care and Geriatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland. Julia.Jockusch@zzm.uzh.ch. 2. Institute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. 3. Department of Prosthodontics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA. 4. Clinic of General, Special Care and Geriatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland. 5. Department of Prosthodontics and Materials Science, Gerodontology Section, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig AöR, Leipzig, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the treatment needs of patients who had received dental treatment under GA and the effectiveness of the treatment provided. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective chart analysis of adult at risk and vulnerable patients requiring dental treatment under GA (2007-2017). Outcome variables were indications for GA, DMF/T, and type of treatment, failure rates of treated teeth, emergencies and recall intervals after GA. RESULTS: Four hundred fourteen subjects (median age 42 years, range 18-93 years) were assigned to four groups (people with disabilities (pwdis), dementias (pwd), dental phobias (pwph), and addictions/psychosocial disorders (pwapd)) and attended the pre-GA assessment. Of these, 247 subjects (median 37 years, range 18-93 years) were treated under GA, mostly pwdis (n = 154, 69.7%). The main indication for treatment under GA was suspicion of pain (n = 178, 72.1%). Pwd had the highest degree of restoration (46.7%), DMF/T value (23.8), and most missing teeth (5.8). Pwapd had the most decayed teeth (12.9). There was a 12-month recall augmented by 2-4 oral hygiene sessions depending on compliance. The failure rate of all treated teeth was 4%. Two dental emergencies were reported for patients who received a GA. CONCLUSIONS: Dental treatment need was high for adult vulnerable people. The diagnostic groups differed mainly in their subjective reason for need of a GA, their DMF/T, treatment needs and type of treatments performed. Failure and dental emergency rates after GA were low in spite of a recall interval of 12 months. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Regular annual recalls could avoid dental emergencies in patients requiring treatment under GA.
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the treatment needs of patients who had received dental treatment under GA and the effectiveness of the treatment provided. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective chart analysis of adult at risk and vulnerable patients requiring dental treatment under GA (2007-2017). Outcome variables were indications for GA, DMF/T, and type of treatment, failure rates of treated teeth, emergencies and recall intervals after GA. RESULTS: Four hundred fourteen subjects (median age 42 years, range 18-93 years) were assigned to four groups (people with disabilities (pwdis), dementias (pwd), dental phobias (pwph), and addictions/psychosocial disorders (pwapd)) and attended the pre-GA assessment. Of these, 247 subjects (median 37 years, range 18-93 years) were treated under GA, mostly pwdis (n = 154, 69.7%). The main indication for treatment under GA was suspicion of pain (n = 178, 72.1%). Pwd had the highest degree of restoration (46.7%), DMF/T value (23.8), and most missing teeth (5.8). Pwapd had the most decayed teeth (12.9). There was a 12-month recall augmented by 2-4 oral hygiene sessions depending on compliance. The failure rate of all treated teeth was 4%. Two dental emergencies were reported for patients who received a GA. CONCLUSIONS: Dental treatment need was high for adult vulnerable people. The diagnostic groups differed mainly in their subjective reason for need of a GA, their DMF/T, treatment needs and type of treatments performed. Failure and dental emergency rates after GA were low in spite of a recall interval of 12 months. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Regular annual recalls could avoid dental emergencies in patients requiring treatment under GA.
Authors: Julia Jockusch; Siri Nitschke; Werner Hopfenmüller; Oliver Schierz; Sebastian Hahnel; Ina Nitschke Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Nicolas Decerle; Pierre-Yves Cousson; Emmanuel Nicolas; Martine Hennequin Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Dagmar Schnabl; Michael Oberhofer; Fabian Barbieri; Johannes Laimer; René Steiner; Emanuel Bruckmoser; Ingrid Grunert Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2021-03-04