Comparison of parental and practitioner's acceptance for dental treatment under general anaesthesia in paediatric patients.
Acceptance
Fear
General anaesthesia
Indications
Paediatric dentistry
Journal
BMC pediatrics
ISSN: 1471-2431
Titre abrégé: BMC Pediatr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967804
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 01 2023
28 01 2023
Historique:
received:
30
06
2022
accepted:
15
12
2022
entrez:
28
1
2023
pubmed:
29
1
2023
medline:
1
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Practitioner's knowledge and parental perspectives on dental general anaesthesia (GA) have been surveyed separately in the past. But in daily routine both need to collaborate for the benefit of the child. The aim of this paper was to compare parental and practitioner's acceptance of GA with special focus on identifying factors which influence their differences in decision making. Questionnaires were conducted among 142 participants in a specialized paediatric dental clinic in Germany from February 2020 to February 2021. 51 German practitioners from private practices and clinics participated. Data collection included: age, gender, experience with GA, fear of GA, risk evaluation and indications for GA. There were no gender related differences in decision making. Emotional factors are present in parents of younger children. Parents are more likely to express fear and uncertainty regarding GA than dentists. Prior experience with GA significantly decreases fears in GA for parents. Both agree that extent of the treatment and low compliance are a suitable indication for GA. Dentists are more likely to accept GA due to a mental disability than parents. Parents were more likely to accept GA than dentists when multiple extractions were needed (regardless of compliance) or acute pain was present. A significant divergence in risk evaluation, acceptance and decision-making could be found in parents compared to dentists. Influencing factors are previous experience, younger age of the child, lack of knowledge and indication for GA.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Practitioner's knowledge and parental perspectives on dental general anaesthesia (GA) have been surveyed separately in the past. But in daily routine both need to collaborate for the benefit of the child. The aim of this paper was to compare parental and practitioner's acceptance of GA with special focus on identifying factors which influence their differences in decision making.
METHODS
Questionnaires were conducted among 142 participants in a specialized paediatric dental clinic in Germany from February 2020 to February 2021. 51 German practitioners from private practices and clinics participated. Data collection included: age, gender, experience with GA, fear of GA, risk evaluation and indications for GA.
RESULTS
There were no gender related differences in decision making. Emotional factors are present in parents of younger children. Parents are more likely to express fear and uncertainty regarding GA than dentists. Prior experience with GA significantly decreases fears in GA for parents. Both agree that extent of the treatment and low compliance are a suitable indication for GA. Dentists are more likely to accept GA due to a mental disability than parents. Parents were more likely to accept GA than dentists when multiple extractions were needed (regardless of compliance) or acute pain was present.
CONCLUSIONS
A significant divergence in risk evaluation, acceptance and decision-making could be found in parents compared to dentists. Influencing factors are previous experience, younger age of the child, lack of knowledge and indication for GA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36707845
doi: 10.1186/s12887-022-03805-1
pii: 10.1186/s12887-022-03805-1
pmc: PMC9883120
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
45Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Anesth Prog. 2018 Winter;65(4):225-230
pubmed: 30715931
Iran J Pediatr. 2016 Mar 05;26(2):e2613
pubmed: 27307962
Anaesthesia. 2019 Jan;74(1):51-56
pubmed: 30383296
Int J Paediatr Dent. 2007 Jan;17(1):29-33
pubmed: 17181576
N Engl J Med. 2017 Mar 9;376(10):905-907
pubmed: 28177852
Int J Paediatr Dent. 2015 May;25(3):204-12
pubmed: 25100446
Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2016 Oct-Dec;9(4):372-378
pubmed: 28127171
Br Dent J. 1996 Apr 20;180(8):297-302
pubmed: 8639371
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2021 Aug;22(4):725-737
pubmed: 33677799
Bull Tokyo Dent Coll. 2019 Feb 28;60(1):53-60
pubmed: 30700644
BMC Oral Health. 2014 Dec 29;14:161
pubmed: 25547464
Disabil Rehabil. 2017 Dec;39(24):2484-2491
pubmed: 27871192
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2013 Oct;26(5):535-42
pubmed: 23995065
J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2019 Jan;31(1):4-6
pubmed: 30531361
Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2010 Apr;19(2):151-4
pubmed: 20485977
Int J Paediatr Dent. 2006 Sep;16(5):309-19
pubmed: 16879327
Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2019 Dec;20(4):285-289
pubmed: 31850770
Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2018 Mar;19(1):44-48
pubmed: 29569453
Paediatr Anaesth. 2018 Jun;28(6):520-527
pubmed: 29722100
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2014 Oct;15(5):333-9
pubmed: 24676547
Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2004 Mar;5(1):9-14
pubmed: 15038783
Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2019 Dec;20(4):290-294
pubmed: 31850771
Community Dent Health. 2007 Mar;24(1):55-8
pubmed: 17405472
Niger J Clin Pract. 2018 May;21(5):597-602
pubmed: 29735860
Paediatr Anaesth. 2002 Oct;12(8):712-7
pubmed: 12472709