4.0 Article

A retrospective comparison of dental treatment under general anesthesia on children with and without mental disabilities

期刊

NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 361-365

出版社

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/1119-3077.130243

关键词

Dental treatment; general anesthesia; intellectual disability; oral health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to determine the properties of the dental procedures performed on children with dental problems under general anesthesia and compared between the patterns of dental treatment provided for intellectual disability and non-cooperate healthy child. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, the records of patients between the ages of 4 and 18 who were treated under general anesthesia were evaluated. Patients were divided into two groups: Those with intellectual disability and healthy patients who had difficulty cooperating. A statistical analysis of the mean standard deviation was conducted with a focus on two factors: Age and dental treatment methods. Results: In this study, it was observed that restorative treatment and tooth extraction was generally higher in intellectual disability children than in their healthy children. When evaluating the health status of teeth, the value of decayed missing and filled teeth (dmf-t) was observed to be close in healthy and intellectual disability individuals in the 4-6 age groups; it was higher in individuals with intellectual disability in the 7-12 age groups. There was no significant difference in terms of periodontal treatment and fissure sealants in the 12-18 age groups. Conclusions: By comparing the different patient groups who received dental treatment under general anesthesia, both the number of teeth extracted and DMF-T indices were higher in the disabled group. Therefore, especially more efforts should be made at encouraging these patients to visit the dentist earlier and receive primary preventive care.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据