Table 3.
Comparison of the treatments selected for case scenarios 5, 6 and 7 (caries of various severities in a primary incisor) by general dental practitioners and paediatric dentists
| Treatment options | Case scenario 5 | Case scenario 6 | Case scenario 7 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 31 | 10.8 | 1 | 4.2 | 24 | 8.4 | 1 | 4.2 | 22 | 7.7 | 1 | 4.2 |
| Fluoride varnish application | 69 | 24.1 | 2 | 8.3 | 11 | 3.8 | 1 | 4.2 | 2 | 0.7 | 0 | 0 |
| Atraumatic restorative technique | 118 | 41.3 | 1 | 4.2 | 91 | 31.8 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.7 | 0 | 0 |
| Traditional restorative treatment | 65 | 22.7 | 16 | 66.7 | 105 | 36.7 | 2 | 8.3 | 1 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 |
| Composite strip crown | 2 | 0.7 | 4 | 16.7 | 41 | 14.3 | 18 | 75 | 1 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 |
| Pulp therapy with glass ionomer/composite or amalgam restoration | 1 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 2.8 | 0 | 0 | 141 | 49.3 | 5 | 20.8 |
| Pulp therapy with composite strip crown | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1.7 | 2 | 8.3 | 78 | 27.3 | 16 | 66.7 |
| Extraction under local anaesthetic | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 | 36 | 12.6 | 2 | 8.3 |
| Refer for extraction under sedation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 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 <0.001* | P-value 0.035* | ||||||||||
GDP, general dental practitioners.
*
Statistically significant (P ≤ 0.05), Pearson’s chi-square (χ2) test.