Factors affecting treatment outcomes following complicated crown fractures managed in primary and secondary care.

The aims of this retrospective observational study were to determine the factors which affect treatment provision and the Median Survival Time (MST) for maintenance of tooth vitality following complicated crown fracture. The survey was carried out for patients treated at Newcastle Dental Hospital (NDH) according to departmental guidelines over a 2-year period following the introduction of a new protocol for management of these types of injuries. Seventy-three cases of complicated crown fracture were identified in 69 children with a mean age of 10.3 years (SD = 2.5 years). Seventy-one percent of the fractures occurred in males (M:F ratio was 2.5:1). Fifty-one percent of the complicated crown fractures were in immature teeth. Of the 73 traumatised teeth, 45% presented initially in general dental practice (GDP), 37% at the dental hospital and 8% at local accident and emergency departments with the remaining 10% seen at other or unrecorded locations. Of the 41 fractures, which presented initially at a location other than the dental hospital, 38% were referred to the dental hospital without the provision of an emergency pulp bandage. The overall definitive treatments provided for the 37 open apex teeth included pulp cap (19%), partial pulpotomy (32%), cervical pulpotomy (8%) and pulpectomy (35%), while for the 36 closed apex teeth it was pulp cap (28%), pulpotomy (11%), and pulpectomy (61%). Of the 30 teeth, which underwent vital pulp therapy (18 open and 12 closed apex), the MST for the 15 teeth treated with pulp caps was 1460 days (95% CI: 1067, 1853) while for the 15 teeth treated with pulpotomies it was 1375 days (95% CI: 964, 1786). There was no statistically significant difference in the MST between teeth treated with pulp caps and pulpotomies. In conclusion, the proportion of patients referred to secondary care with complicated crown fractures without provision of a pulp bandage is of some concern. More conservative treatment of closed apex teeth sustaining complicated crown fractures, utilizing vital pulp therapy techniques would appear to be appropriate.

Management of dental trauma in primary care: a postal survey of general dental practitioners.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the self-perceived knowledge and attitudes of general dental practitioners (GDPs) concerning management of dental trauma in primary care. To identify potential barriers to the management of dental trauma in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A self-completion postal questionnaire survey of 417 GDPs in six local health authority districts in northeast England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Likert scale responses to 20 statements designed to test self-perceived knowledge and attitudes. Following descriptive statistical analysis. Factor analysis with principle components analysis was undertaken to identify areas of correlation in questionnaire responses, followed by Chi squared test, Spearman's Rank Correlation and analysis of variance (ANOVA) to measure association between variables. RESULTS: The response rate was 74%. Enamel and dentine fractures were the most common injury, with 45% of GDPs responding seeing more than 10 cases of dental trauma in the preceding year and 53% of respondents seeing one to three cases of complicated crown fracture. Seventy-eight per cent believed that NHS remuneration was inadequate, but only 8% would refer patients with dental trauma to secondary care for this reason. Half of the GDPs believed that trauma could be treated more effectively in practice if NHS payments were greater. GDPs were significantly more likely to agree with this statement if they had previously undertaken a postgraduate course in the treatment of dental trauma (p=0.002). Single handed GDPs were statistically significantly more likely to agree with the statements 'I would not treat dental trauma cases at my practice because the NHS payment is inadequate' (p=0.008) and 'Treating dental trauma at my practice requires too much of my clinical time to be worthwhile' (p=0.002). Ninety-six per cent of GDPs disagreed that treatment of dental trauma rested solely within secondary care. Ninety-six per cent of GDPs agreed that they had a responsibility to provide initial emergency treatment for trauma patients prior to referral. Eighty-eight per cent of GDPs felt that aids to management would be useful. CONCLUSIONS: Although GDPs believed that financial remuneration was inadequate, this did not prevent them treating trauma cases. They strongly agreed that they had responsibility for the management of dental trauma in primary care and that they believed trauma could be treated more effectively in practice if payment was greater. Time constraints were perceived as a barrier to long-term management of complex trauma cases in primary care. GDPs would welcome the use of management aids.