Success of Dental Treatments under Behavior Management, Sedation and General Anesthesia

Objective: To present comparative study aims to assist the practitioner to choose between behavior modification (BM) techniques, pharmacologic sedation (N2O-O2 alone or combined with midazolam 0.5 mg/ kg) or routine general anesthesia (GA) for the most successful approach in enabling pediatric dental care.

Study design: Dental records of 56 children treated in a university dental clinic between 2006–2016 were reviewed, and data on age, gender, required treatment (amalgam restorations, composite restorations, pulpotomy, and stainless steel crowns [SSC]), treatment approaches and therapeutic success at final follow-up were retrieved. Results: Treatment under GA had the best success rates compared to both BM and pharmacologic sedation. N2O-O2 alone had a 6.1-fold greater risk of failure compared to N2O-O2+midazolam (p− <0.008). Amalgam restorations had a 2.61-fold greater risk of failure than SSC (p− <0.008). Conclusions: The GA mode yielded significantly greater success than the N2O-O2 mode alone. There were no significant differences in success rates between GA and combined midazolam 0.5 mg/kg+N2O-O2. When choosing restoration material, it is important to remember the high success rate of SSC compared to amalgam restoration.

Success, dental restorations, children, sedation, general anesthesia

1. Duperon DF. Early childhood caries: a continuing dilemma. J Calif Dent Assoc 44: 15-25, 1995

2. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Policy on Early Childhood Caries (ECC): Classifications, Consequences, and Preventive Strategies. Pediatr Dent 36: 50, 2014

3. Wilson S and Nathan JE. A survey study of sedation training in advanced pediatric dentistry programs: thoughts of program directors and students. Pediatr Dent 33: 353-360, 2011.

4. Wilson S. Pharmacological management of the pediatric dental patient. Pediatr Dent 26: 131-136, 2004. Review.

5. Ashley PF, Williams CE, Moles DR, Parry J. Sedation versus general anes-thesia for provision of dental treatment in under 18 year olds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Jan 21, CD006334, 2009.

6. Nelson TM and Xu Z. Pediatric dental sedation: challenges and opportuni-ties. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 7: 97-106, 2015.

7. Peretz B and Zadik D. Parents’ attitudes toward behavior management techniques during dental treatment. Pediatr Dent 21: 201-204, 1999.

8. Peretz B, Kharouba J, Blumer S. Pattern of parental acceptance of management techniques used in pediatric dentistry. J Clin Pediatr Dent 38: 27-30, 2013.

9. Fuhrer CT, Weddell JA, Sanders BJ, Jones JE, Dean JA, Tomlin A. Effect on behavior of dental treatment rendered under conscious sedation and general anesthesia in pediatric patients. Pediatr Dent 31: 492-497, 2009.

10. Milnes AR. Intravenous procedural sedation: an alternative to general anes-thesia in the treatment of early childhood caries. J Can Dent Assoc 69:

298- 302, 2003.

11. Eidelman E, Faibis S, Peretz B. A comparison of restorations for children with early childhood caries treated under general anesthesia or conscious sedation. Pediatr Dent 22: 33-37, 2000.

12. Frankl SN, Shiere FR, Fogels HR. Should the parent remain with the child in the dental operatory. J Dent Child 29:150- 62, 1962.

13. Foster T, Perinpanayagam H, Pfaffenbach A, Certo M. Recurrence of early childhood caries after comprehensive treatment with general anesthesia and follow-up. J Dent Child (Chic) 73: 25-30, 2006.

14. Sheehy E, Hirayama K, Tsamtsouris A. A survey of parents whose children had full-mouth rehabilitation under general anesthesia regarding subse-quent preventive dental care. Pediatr Dent 16: 362-364, 1994.

15. Peretz B, Ram D, Azo E, Efrat Y. Preschool caries as an indicator of future caries: a longitudinal study. Pediatr Dent 25: 114-118, 2003.

16. Tate AR, Ng MW, Needleman HL, Acs G. Failure rates of restorative proce-dures following dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia. Pediatr Dent 24: 69-71, 2002.

17. Casamassimo PS, Wilson S, Gross L. Effects of changing U.S. parenting styles on dental practice: perceptions of diplomates of the American Board of Pediatric Dentistry presented to the College of Diplomates of the American Board of Pediatric Dentistry 16th Annual Session, Atlanta, Ga, Saturday, May 26, 2001. Pediatr Dent 24: 18-22, 2002.

18. Fuks AB, Kaufman E, Ram R, Hovav H, Shapira J. Assessment of two doses of intranasal midazolam for sedation of young pediatric dental patients. Pediatr Dent 16: 301-305, 1994.

19. Houpt MI, Weiss NJ, Koenigsberg SR, Desjardin PJ. Comparison of chloral hydrate with and without promethazine in the sedation of young children. Pediatr Dent 7: 41-46, 1985.

20. Papathanasiou AG, Curzon ME, Fairpo CG. The influence of restorative material on the survival rate of restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 16: 282-288, 1994.

21. Soncini JA, Maserejian NN, Trachtenberg F, Tavares M, Hayes CT. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in poste-rior primary and permanent teeth: findings From the New England Chil-dren’s Amalgam Trial. J Am Dent Assoc 138: 763-772, 2007

22. Kilpatrick NM. Durability of restorations in primary molars. J Dent 21: 67- 73, 1993.

23. Amalgam and the Minamata Convention. In: The Oral Health Atlas, 2nd Edition, FDI World Dental Federation, 2015.

24. Peretz B. The Minamata Convention: towards mercury-free dental resto-rations? Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim 32: 68, 2015.

25. Graves CE, Berkowitz RJ, Proskin HM, Chase I, Weinstein P, Billings R. Clinical outcomes for early childhood caries: influence of aggressive dental surgery. J Dent Child (Chic) 71: 114-117, 2004.