3.8 Article

Early childhood caries: recurrence after comprehensive dental treatment under general anaesthesia

Journal

EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF PAEDIATRIC DENTISTRY
Volume 11, Issue 6, Pages 269-273

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/BF03262761

Keywords

early childhood caries; treatment; general anaesthesia; dental caries; recurrence

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIMS: This was to assess the recurrence of dental caries and the affecting factors after dental surgery for early childhood caries (ECC). STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study completed in a private dental practice with surgical facilities. METHODS: Dental charts were reviewed for 269 patients under 6-years-old who had comprehensive dental care under general anaesthesia (GA) between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007. The rate of new caries was evaluated by recording the new carious lesions at each follow-up appointment up to 24 months after the original dental surgery. RESULTS: Of the 269 patients, 62% had at least one recall appointment within 12 months after the GA; 24% of these had at least one new carious lesion. Of the 36 patients who attended recalls at 13 to 24 months following the GA, 53% had new carious lesions. Demographics, defs/deft before the GA, and number of extractions, pulpotomies, and preformed metal crowns (PMC) at the GA were not associated with relapse. Patients who had a previous dental GA were less likely to relapse in the short term (1-6 months after GA), but more likely to relapse in the longer term (19-24 months), as compared with those who had not had another GA. CONCLUSION: A previous dental GA experience may have an immediate impact on parents to promote healthy behaviours, but the challenges that they face may eventually mean failure of maintaining good oral health in the long term. A comprehensive and frequent preventive approach is required to reduce the relapse rate following a dental surgery for ECC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available