Table 2.
Participants views on using MID techniques for the management of carious primary teeth prior to COVID-19 pandemic including the reasons for using MID techniques
| Variable | BSPD participants N (70) |
EAPD participants N (142) |
Total N (212) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did you use MID prior to the pandemic | |||
| Yes | 62 (88.6%) | 134 (94.4%) | 196 (92.5%) |
| No | 8 (11.4%) | 8 (5.6%) | 16 (7.5%) |
| How often did you use MID | |||
| Never | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Occasionally (less than 50% of all cases) | 19 (27.1%) | 83 (58.5%) | 102 (48.1%) |
| Often (between 50 and 75% of all cases) | 42 (60%) | 50 (35.2%) | 92 (43.4%) |
| Always | 9 (12.9%) | 9 (6.3%) | 18 (8.5%) |
| When MID was used | |||
| As treatment option | 33 (47.1%) | 54 (38% | 87 (41%) |
| As treatment choice | 29 (41.4%) | 44 (31%) | 73 (34.5%) |
| When conventional restoration could not be provided | 8 (11.5%) | 44 (31%) | 52 (24.5%) |
| Reasons for using MID prior the pandemic | |||
| Atraumatic techniques where no local anaesthetic required | 51 (72.9%) | 89 (63.6%) | 140 (66%) |
| Maintain tooth structure and reduce risk of pulp exposure | 59 (84.3%) | 106 (75.7%) | 165 (77.8%) |
| Easy to do | 41 (58.6%) | 55 (39.3%) | 122 (57.5%) |
| Short procedure | 43 (61.4%) | 79 (56.4%) | 122 (57.5%) |
| Highly accepted by children | 61 (87.1% | 91 (65%) | 152 (71.7%) |
| Appropriate for anxious children | 61 (87.1% | 107 (76.4%) | 168 (79.2%) |
| Appropriate for young children | 57 (81.4%) | 101 (72.1%) | 158 (74.5%) |
| Strong evidence of the clinical effectiveness of MID | 59 (84.3%) | 78 (55.7%) | 137 (64.6%) |
| Was your choice of using MID affected by the patient behaviour | |||
| Yes | 55 (78.6%) | 120 (84.5%) | 175 (82.5%) |
| No | 15 (21.4%) | 22 (15.5%) | 37 (17.5%) |