Fast search with keyword It provides easy access to our database
Reasons of repeat dental treatment under general anaesthesia: A retrospective study
Pubblication date: 12/2017
Authors: J. Guidry*, S. Bagher**, O. Felemban**, A. Rich***, C. Loo****
Institution: Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
*Pediatric Dentist, private practice, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
**Assistant Professor, Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
***Associate Clinical Professor and part-time member of the Department of Pediatric Dentistry
****Professor and Chair, Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Publication: European Journal of Paediatic Dentistry
Publisher: Ariesdue srl
Keywords: General anaesthesia, dental treatment, repeat dental treatment.
Title: Reasons of repeat dental treatment under general anaesthesia: A retrospective study
Abstract: Aim The purpose of this chart review study was to investigate the common factors that exist in paediatric patients requiring a repeat dental treatment under general anaesthesia (GA2) within four years after the initial dental treatment under general anaesthesia (GA1).
Materials and methods The Electronic Health Records of one to 12 year-old children who received dental treatment under general anaesthesia (GA) between April 2004 and October 2009 were identified and analysed by a single examiner. Children who had GA2, within a four year period following GA1 were categorised as cases. Children who had only one dental treatment under GA were considered the control pool. Each case was matched to three controls based on sex and age range at GA1 of + 6 months. Other recorded variables included: date of birth, date of GAs (GA1 and GA2 for cases; GA1 for controls), type of payment, dmfs before GA1, dental treatments provided under GA, return of 1-week post-GA1 follow-up, frequency of recare/recall visits following one-year post-GA1 visit and the type and frequency of post GA1 emergency visits.
Results Out of 581 subjects, 29 (4.99%) cases were matched to 87 controls. Medically compromised patients had four times the risk of GA2. At GA1, cases received statistically significant less sealants (p=0.026), less extractions (p<0.0001), and more composite restorations (p=0.0002) compared to controls.
Conclusion Medically compromised children and children treated with more composites and fewer sealants and extractions at their initial dental treatment under general anaesthesia were more likely to have a repeat dental treatment under general anaesthesia within 4 years.