Assessment of traumatic injuries to primary teeth in general practise and specialized paediatric dentistry.

AIM

The aim of this prospective study was to compare diagnosis, severity of trauma and treatment of traumatic injuries to the primary dentition in two groups of children, the first recommended for treatment by general practitioners and the second referred for treatment by a specialist paediatric dentist.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 323 children with traumatic injuries, 184 boys and 139 girls aged 7-83 months, participated in the study. All the children had first presented at a Public Dental Service clinic where they were examined by general dentists who decided, based on the severity of the trauma, to assign each child to one of the following two groups: Group A--recommended for treatment at the general practise (166 children with 257 traumatized incisor teeth). Group B--recommended for referral to a specialist in paediatric dentistry (157 children with 261 traumatized incisor teeth). Even in Group A, the specialist controlled the treatment decisions. The clinical diagnose and follow-up followed the recommendations presented by Andreasen & Andreasen.

RESULTS

The distribution of trauma by age was similar in both groups, with about 60% occurring between 1 and 3 years. More injured teeth were extracted in children in Group B (n = 111) than in Group A (n = 33). A higher percentage of intruded primary incisors were recorded in Group B (24%) compared with Group A (16%). Similarly, the percentage of concussions/subluxations, lateral luxations and complicated crown fractures was higher in Group B than in Group A.

CONCLUSIONS

The group referred for specialist treatment had more severe injuries and needed more complicated treatment than the group recommended for care by general dentists. However, the rate of sequelae in permanent successors was the same in both.