Comparison approahes to children’s caries treatment among ukrainian dental students and dentists

Abstract

Selecting the non-operative or operative method of caries treatment is crucial for saving affected teeth. This article aims to investigate the diagnosis and treatment methods of caries lesions in children which preferred by the students and dentists from Poltava city, and to explore factors influencing their treatment approaches. The research tool was standard anonymous survey modified by the authors, which composed of three clinical scenarios and questions about diagnosis and treatment of carious lesions and collected data on gender and length of dental service (assistance for students). The fourth- and fifth-year dental students from Poltava state medical university (PSMU) and the dentists from government-owned and private clinics in Poltava were interviewed. Statistical analysis of the results was performed using descriptive statistics and Pearson's chi-square test. Among the students, 2.7% believed that radiographs estimate the true depth of a proximal carious lesion compared with clinical findings, and 66.1% of the dentists agreed with this statement (p<0.05). 66.9% of the students and 84.75% of the dentists answered that it would take less than 6 months for an approximal lesion to progress from outer enamel to dentin (p<0.05). 56.25% of the students and 77.97% of the dentists (p<0.05) diagnosed an enamel caries (ICDAS 2-3) in the first clinical scenario. For the first clinical scenario, choice of treatment method depended on student's length of dental assistance (p<0.05). 42.36% of the students and 55.93% of the dentists (p<0.05) diagnosed enamel caries in the second clinical scenario. In both clinical scenarios, dentists predominantly chose operative treatment methods (66.09% and 78.82%), which was significantly higher than the rates observed among students (43.06% and 47.02%; p<0.001). 56.5% of the students and 59.32% of the dentists chose immediate operative treatment for an occlusal carious lesion confined by enamel in the third clinical scenario. The surveyed students did not place sufficient importance to radiographs in diagnosis of proximal lesions. Instead, students length of dental assistance was a major factor influencing their treatment decisions for enamel caries. The majority of surveyed dentists disagreed with current recommendations for treatment of enamel lesions, preferring operative intervention to a non-operative approach. This suggests that academic institutions should make conservative and restorative dentistry a priority area.