ABSTRACT
Halitosis has become a major concern, as it is the third most common reason for dental visits and affects individuals across all ages, genders, and ethnicities. Only a few limited studies have explored the prevalence and etiology of halitosis in the pediatric population. Therefore, the aim of this review was to identify the etiological factors influencing the widespread occurrence of halitosis in pediatric dentistry in order to guide therapy based on the identified causes, thereby improving children's quality of life. The etiology of halitosis is multifactorial; however, in most cases, halitosis is associated with the oral cavity. It can also be related to otorhinolaryngological and respiratory or even gastric diseases. Although halitosis in children is widely associated with poor oral hygiene, we cannot rule out other possible causes, such as otorhinolaryngological and respiratory causes.
Subject(s)
Halitosis , Child , Female , Halitosis/diagnosis , Halitosis/etiology , Halitosis/therapy , Humans , Male , Mouth , Pediatric Dentistry , Prevalence , Quality of LifeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The anatomical and morphological alterations associated with cleft lip and palate (CLP) favour the buildup of dental plaque. AIM: To assess the efficacy of a new add-on to regular toothbrush-the Cleft Toothbrush, in removing the dental plaque of CLP patients, compared to a regular toothbrush. DESIGN: Forty-five children with CLP were randomly organized into two groups: A (n = 26, 2-6 years old) and B (n = 19, 7-12 years old). They were evaluated at days 0, 15, 30, and 60. After brushing their teeth with a regular toothbrush or with the Cleft Toothbrush, the dental plaque was recorded using an adapted Plaque Index (aPI). Data analyses were performed in IBM SPSS(c) , and all statistic inference comparisons were made using non-parametric tests. RESULTS: In the first 15 days, children used a new regular toothbrush and aPI-C (teeth adjacent to the cleft) was recorded. The Cleft Toothbrush, used by all children from day 15 to day 30, showed high efficacy in removing dental plaque in the cleft area, evidenced by significantly lower aPI-C values, compared to those observed with the regular toothbrush (P < 0.001). When given free option of brushing technique, from day 30 to day 60, most of the children (38 out of 45) chose the Cleft Toothbrush. CONCLUSIONS: The Cleft Toothbrush showed high efficacy in removing dental plaque in the cleft area, and presented high level of acceptance by parents and children, compared to a regular toothbrush. This is expected to improve the health status of the local adjacent tissues, a requirement for their rehabilitation.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Performing dental treatments on pediatric patients who present behavioral problems is usually a great clinical challenge. Depending on the patients’ emotional maturity and their physical, psychological and mental skills, the usual behavior control techniques may not offer adequate efficacy and safety when dental procedures are being carried out. In these circumstances, alternative and more invasive methods such as conscious sedation and general anesthesia may become necessary. OBJECTIVE: To compare the indications and contraindications of conscious sedation and general anesthesia in pediatric dentistry. METHOD: Literature research undertaken through the MEDLINE/Pubmed, Science Direct and B-on search engines between April and June 2013 using a 5 year time frame and the following keywords: conscious sedation, general anesthesia, pediatric dentistry and guidelines. RESULTS: Conscious sedation is recommended to anxious patients who have dental and needle phobia, to patients that present an increased vomiting reflex and also to patients with special needs but capable of communicating. General anesthesia is indicated for non-cooperating patients under the age of four, in mouth breathers, in children ASA III or higher and in pediatric patients who do not communicate. CONCLUSIONS: Each technique must be selected according to the characteristics showed by patient. Although conscious sedation and general anesthesia introduce benefits to pediatric dentistry, they should not be regarded as priority intervention techniques for behavior control. The pediatric dentist’s previous knowledge of these techniques provides a better level of dental care quality as well as more safety and less discomfort for their patients.
RESUMO INTRODUÇÃO: A execução de tratamentos odontológicos em pacientes pediátricos que apresentam alterações comportamentais constitui frequentemente um grande desafio clínico para o odontopediatra. Dependendo da maturidade emocional dos pacientes e de suas habilidades físicas, psicológicas e mentais, as técnicas de controle de comportamento usuais podem não oferecer a eficácia e a segurança adequadas à realização dos procedimentos dentários. Nestas circunstâncias, podem ser necessários métodos alternativos e mais invasivos, como a sedação consciente e a anestesia geral. Neste trabalho comparam-se as indicações e contra-indicações de sedação consciente e anestesia geral em odontopediatria. MÉTODO: A revisão da literatura foi realizada através dos motores de pesquisa MEDLINE/PubMed, Science Direct e B-ON, entre abril e junho de 2013, com uma limitação temporal de cinco anos e as seguintes palavras-chave: sedação consciente, a anestesia geral, odontopediatria e diretrizes. RESULTADOS: A sedação consciente é recomendada para pacientes ansiosos, com "medo de dentista e de agulhas", para pacientes que apresentam um maior reflexo do vómito e também para pacientes com necessidades especiais, mas capazes de comunicação. Por outro lado, a anestesia geral é recomendada para pacientes com idade inferior a quatro anos que não colaboram, para respiradores orais, para crianças ASA III ou superior e para crianças que não se comunicam. CONCLUSÕES: Cada técnica deve ser escolhida de acordo com as características do paciente. Apesar da anestesia geral e da sedação consciente introduzirem benefícios no atendimento dentário do paciente infantil, estas não devem ser consideradas como técnicas de intervenção prioritária no controle comportamental. O conhecimento prévio das indicações e contraindicações destas técnicas permitem ao odontopediatra proporcionar um maior nível de qualidade no atendimento dentário, assegurando a maior segurança e o menor desconforto para os seus pacientes jovens.
