Children’s dental general anaesthesia:reasons and associated factors

Abstract General anaesthesia (GA) is a widely used sedation method in dentistry. It is usually used for patients with an extensive dental treatment need, most often related to dental caries, and limited coping skills to consider conventional dental care. These patients are often small children or persons with dental fear. Using dental general anaesthesia (DGA) is expensive, special equipment and trained staff are needed, and it is not without risks for patients. The aim of this study was to investigate factors associated with children’s DGA. In addition to dental caries and dental fear, general health status, oral health behaviours, family-related factors, as well as dental attendance after DGA were in focus. The thesis is composed of five independent studies. There were three different study populations ‒ one in specialised and two in primary health care. There was also an age- and gender-matched comparison group for one of the study populations. Questionnaires were used in three of the studies, and two of the studies were based on patient files. According to the results, DGA is more common among medically compromised children than among healthy children. Medically compromised children have more often a history of DGA treatments compared with their healthy peers. Dental caries and dental fear were the main reasons for DGA in all of the studies. Dietary and drinking habits, as well as oral hygiene behaviours were distinctly poorer among children undergoing DGA than among those treated in a normal dental setting. A history of DGA in the family, a large number of siblings and male gender were important background factors associated with DGA. Patients treated under DGA were prone to miss or cancel their upcoming appointments. In conclusion, DGA is necessary in some cases, but it could be avoided if factors associated with DGA were taken into account in treatment plans. DGA in itself does not have an enhancing effect on oral health over the long term.Tiivistelmä Yleisanestesia on hammashoidossa yleisesti käytetty sedaatiomenetelmä vaikeahoitoisille potilaille. He ovat usein pieniä lapsia, hammashoitopelkoisia tai sellaisia potilaita, joiden hoidontarve on liian laaja ja haastava tavanomaiseen hammashoitoon. Tämän tutkimuksen tavoitteena oli selvittää lasten nukutushammashoitoon liittyviä tekijöitä. Karieksen ja hammashoitopelon lisäksi tutkimuksen kohteena oli yleisterveydellisiä seikkoja, suunterveystottumuksia, perheeseen liittyviä tekijöitä sekä hammashoitopalvelujen käyttö nukutushammashoidon jälkeen. Tämä väitöskirja koostuu viidestä erillisestä osajulkaisusta. Tutkimusjoukkoja oli kolme: yksi erikoissairaanhoidosta ja kaksi perusterveydenhuollosta. Yhdelle tutkimusjoukolle oli ikä- ja sukupuolivakioitu vertailuryhmä. Kyselylomakkeita käytettiin kolmessa osajulkaisussa ja kaksi osajulkaisua perustui potilaspapereihin. Nukutushammashoito oli yleisempää yleissairailla kuin terveillä lapsilla. Yleissairailla lapsilla oli myös useammin nukutushammashoitohistoriaa kuin terveillä lapsilla. Karies ja hammashoitopelko olivat pääsyyt nukutushammashoitoon kaikissa tutkimuksissa. Juoma- ja ruokatottumukset, kuten myös suuterveystottumukset, olivat selkeästi huonommat nukutushammashoidossa hoidetuilla lapsilla kuin niillä lapsilla, jotka hoidettiin normaalisti hereillä. Perheen nukutushammashoitohistoria, suuri määrä sisaruksia ja miessukupuoli olivat merkittäviä nukutushammashoitoon yhteydessä olevia tekijöitä. Nukutushammashoidossa hoidetut potilaat jättivät usein tulematta nukutushammashoidon jälkeisille hammashoitokäynneilleen tai peruivat aikansa. Nukutushammashoito on välttämätön tietyissä tilanteissa, mutta se voitaisiin välttää, jos siihen liittyviä tekijöitä huomioitaisiin paremmin hoitosuunnitelmissa. Nukutushammashoidolla sinänsä ei ole suunterveyttä parantavaa pitkäaikaisvaikutusta

Oral health behaviors associated with dental general anesthesia among healthy children

Abstract Background: The aim of this survey was to investigate family-related factors among healthy children treated under dental general anesthesia (DGA) compared to those treated in a normal dental setting. Methods: The survey comprised 87 children whose dental treatment was performed under DGA and 103 age-matched children who were treated in a normal setting. The children were healthy 3 to 11-year-olds, and their parents filled out the questionnaire on parental dental fear, DGA experiences in the family, and oral health behaviors. The data were collected in primary health care in the city of Oulu, Finland, during 2014–2016. Results: In the DGA group, the proportion of fearful parents was three-fold higher and the proportion of siblings with DGA experience four-fold higher than in the comparison group; the differences between the groups were statistically significant. The dietary habits were statistically significantly poorer in the DGA group than among the comparison group when several indicators were considered. Linear regression analysis showed that treating a child in DGA was associated with harmful oral health behaviors like eating candy, drinking juice, and poor tooth brushing habits. Conclusions: Parental dental fear, DGA experiences of siblings, and harmful oral health behaviors were more common among children treated in a normal dental setting. Screening children and families for the risk indicators identified in this study may help prevent unnecessary DGAs among healthy control

10-year follow-up study on attendance pattern after dental treatment in primary oral health care clinic for fearful patients

Abstract Background: Dental fear may lead to avoidance of regular dental treatment. The scope of this long-term practe-based study was to monitor the dental attendance of patients who received chair-side dental and fear treatment. Methods: In 2000–2006, patients in the City of Oulu, Finland, received treatment for dental fear in the Clinic for Fearful Dental Patients (CFDP) from primary health care dentists trained on this subject. Of the originally treated patients (n = 163), 152 (93%) with sufficient information in dental records made up the study population. Information on their age and sex was available. The number of dental examinations, emergency visits and missed appointments was collected covering the follow-up period of 10 years 2006–2016. For analyses, data were dichotomized according to age at baseline and preliminary outcome baseline condition of dental fear treatment evaluated in 2006. To investigate association further, Poisson regression as well as binary logistic regression models were conducted. As register keeper, the City of Oulu gave permission for this retrospective data-based study. Results: Patients receiving dental fear treatment at younger age (2–10 y) had significantly more dental examinations than those treated at > 10 years. Preliminary success was associated with the number of examinations, but not with emergency visits and missed appointments. Sex was not a significant factor in later dental attendance. There was an association between few dental examinations and dental emergency care need with unsuccessful baseline outcome of dental fear treatment. Conclusions: Successful dental fear treatment especially at an early age is beneficial for future dental attendance measured by the number of examinations and consequently, less need for emergency care than in the opposite case. Successful fear treatment has positive impact on later dental care and regular dental attendance

Methods helping dentists to detect dental fear

Abstract Objectives: Dental fear is common and yet often remains unrecognised. COVID-19 has challenged health care since 2020. This study aimed to evaluate patients’ self-reported dental fear and detection of dental fear by the dentists. Another aim was to validate a colour code instrument for estimating dental fear. The influence of COVID-19 on fear and attendance was assessed. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in the primary urgent dental care of Oulu, Finland, in spring 2020 and 2021 after the first (T1) and third waves (T2) of the pandemic. Data were obtained for analyses using the Modified Dental Anxiety Scale (MDAS), Facial Image Scale (FIS), and a new “traffic light” colour code for dental fear (CCF). The influence of COVID-19 on dental fear and attendance was assessed with structured and open-ended questions. The questionnaires were completed by 273 anonymous participants. Results: Of the participants, 167 (61.2%) visited dental care during T1 and 106 (38.8%) during T2. Their mean age was 45.1 years. An MDAS score of 19 or above, indicating severe fear, was reported by 10.6% of the participants. Of those with severe dental fear, 87% chose the red colour in the CCF “traffic light” system. The association between dentists’ and participants’ estimation of dental fear was weak (P < .001) and agreement with the red code was nonexistent (Cohen’s kappa value = −0.035). MDAS scores of the younger participants were higher than those of the older ones after the first wave (T1) (P = .021). COVID-19 had the strongest influence on dental attendance and dental fear of those having the most severe self-reported dental fear as measured by the MDAS. Conclusions: Colour-coded traffic lights seem valid for screening severe dental fear and are easy and quick to use. They could be useful tools especially since recognising dental fear seems difficult for dentists. The COVID-19 pandemic has complicated dental care for the most fearful individuals