Table 2.

Comparison of the treatments selected for case scenarios 1, 2 and 3 (caries of various severities in a primary molar) by general dental practitioners and paediatric dentists

Treatment options	Case scenario 1				Case scenario 2				Case scenario 3
	GDPs (n = 286)		Paediatric dentists (n = 24)		GDPs (n = 286)		Paediatric dentists (n = 24)		GDPs (n = 286)		Paediatric dentists (n = 24)
	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
No restorative treatment	4	1.4	0	0	1	0.3	0	0	5	1.7	1	4.2
Fluoride varnish application	11	3.8	1	4.2	2	0.7	0	0	0	0	0	0
Atraumatic restorative technique	170	59.4	3	12.5	85	29.7	0	0	1	0.3	0	0
Traditional restorative treatment	98	34.4	20	83.3	169	59.1	18	75.0	4	1.4	0	0
Stainless steel crown	2	0.7	0	0	13	4.5	4	16.7	1	0.3	0	0
Pulp therapy with glass ionomer/composite or amalgam restoration	1	0.3	0	0	13	4.5	2	8.3	177	61.9	10	41.7
Pulp therapy with stainless steel crown	0	0	0	0	3	1.0	0	0	84	29.4	13	54.2
Extraction under local anaesthetic	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	11	3.8	0	0
Refer for extraction under sedation	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	1.0	0	0
Refer for extraction under general anaesthetic	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	P-value <0.001*				P-value 0.019*				P-value 0.315

GDP, general dental practitioners.

^*Statistically significant (P ≤ 0.05), Pearson’s chi-square (χ²) test.