CONTEMPORARY DENTAL CARIES MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS IN PAEDIATRIC DENTISTRY:
A SURVEY OF AWARENESS AND PRACTICE OF A GROUP OF GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL DENTISTS
teeth, which in the GCC region had created a lot
of confusion. This was even noted in our study;
PDs used either FS or FC as a PM (equally n=13,
41.9% for each). MTA, FS and CH are used as
alternatives to FC as pulpotomy medicaments. 19
CH has been used, but with less long term success
because it has been shown to cause internal
resorption in primary teeth. 24 FS is a coagulative
and haemostatic agent and it has been found to
have high clinical (100%) and radiographic (97%)
success rates. 25 Meta-analysis of six prospective
controlled trials 23 showed that both FC and FS
had similar clinical and radiographic outcomes.
Overall clinical success of FS was 78 -100% and
radiographic success was 42 - 97%. MTA has also
been reported as a pulp therapy medicament with
very high (more than 95%) 2 year-follow up clinical
and radiographic success rates. 26 The choice of
pulpotomy medicaments vary among dental
practitioners and also between countries. A 2012
USA survey 18 reported that 69% of general dentists
and 68% paediatric dentists used FC; 15% of GDPs
and 23% PDs used FS and only 3% of GDPs and 1%
PDs reported using MTA. In an analysis of 47 trials
and 3910 randomised teeth, a recent Cochrane
systematic review in 2014 5 found no evidence to
identify a superior PM although MTA or FS were
highlighted as “preferable”. Smaïl-Faugeron et al,
stated 4 that the “cost of MTA may preclude its clinical
use and therefore FS could be used”. This seemed
to be the case in our study, as the first choice by
all those surveyed was FS (40.7%), followed by
FC (36.7 %) but MTA came in 3rd position (14%)
followed last by CH (8.7%). It was interesting to
Figure 7. Awareness and practice of the Hall technique per specialty. *denotes statistical significance (p >0.05).
Figure 8. Sealing in caries in primary and permanent teeth. The majority of those surveyed opted for “No” in both
dentitions.
34
Stoma Edu J. 2017;4(1): 27-38. http://www.stomaeduj.com