Paediatric dentistry trainee views on training relating to the medically compromised child and oral medicine elements of specialty training curricula.

INTRODUCTION: Paediatric dentists care for children who are medically compromised and with an orofacial disease; therefore, trainees need appropriate training in these areas. The prevalence of congenital and chronic diseases in children is increasing, and future specialists need an understanding of human health and disease and oral medicine. This study aimed to determine if current teaching and assessments were fulfilling these requirements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey distributed to the UK and Ireland specialty trainees asked their opinions on whether knowledge gained prior to entering training, and teaching and learning during training equipped them for future management of medically compromised children and those with oral medicine diagnoses. RESULTS: The response rate was 51% (26 trainees). Most were aware of curriculum elements for medically compromised children and oral medicine. The majority felt that knowledge and experience gained as undergraduates and early graduates was insufficient and recognised the need for these topics in speciality training. For medically compromised children, this learning was considered a good use of time by 96% of trainees, and 88% felt that this topic should be given more attention. For oral medicine, this learning was considered a good use of time by 96% of trainees, and 69% felt that this topic should have more attention. CONCLUSION: Paediatric dentistry specialty trainees recognise that knowledge and experience of managing patients considered medically compromised and those with oral medicine conditions are an important part of training and need greater emphasis, especially in light of changing demographics with congenital and acquired chronic disease, and children with oral medicine disorders.

Dental anomalies in cleft lip and/or palate children at age 10 - a retrospective review across three cleft centres: Part 1.

Introduction Children with oral clefts often present with dental anomalies which can impact function, aesthetics and complicate the patient's dental treatment and needs. An understanding of potential anomalies, along with early recognition and planning, is thus essential for effective care.Aim This paper is the first in a two-part three-centre series. This paper will assess the dental anomalies identified in 10-year-old patients attending three cleft centres in the UK.Method Retrospective review was undertaken of the clinical notes of 10-year-old patients attending South Wales (SW), Cleft NET East (CNE) and West Midlands (WM) cleft units, for their ten-year audit record appointment in 2016/2017.Results In total, 144 patients were reviewed (SW = 42; CNE = 52; WM = 50). Dental anomalies were recorded for 80.6% of patients (n = 116).Discussion The review gives insight into the dental complexities of UK oral cleft patients. These patients require specialist paediatric dental input and intensive preventive regimes.Conclusion Shared care between cleft team specialists and general dental practitioners is important when providing holistic care for cleft patients.

Associated medical conditions among 10-year-old children with oral clefts - a retrospective review across three cleft centres: Part 2.

Introduction In many cases, children with oral clefts present with accompanying medical conditions. These associated conditions can add complexity to the patient's dental management, both in terms of their treatment need and risk. Recognition and careful consideration of associated medical conditions is therefore crucial in providing safe and effective care for these patients.Aim This paper is the second in a two-part three-centre series. It investigates the prevalence of medical conditions affecting cleft lip and/or palate patients attending three cleft units within the UK.Method Retrospective review was undertaken within three cleft units: South Wales (SW), Cleft NET East (CNE) and West Midlands (WM). This was completed via assessment of the 10-year audit record appointment clinical notes for the year 2016/2017.Results In total, 144 cases were reviewed (SW = 42; CNE = 52; WM = 50). Of these, 38.9% of patients (n = 56) had associated medical conditions recorded.Discussion The review highlights the variety and impact of medical conditions affecting UK cleft patients providing insight into the consequent complexity of their dental care.Conclusion An awareness of cleft lip and/or palate patients' associated medical conditions is important for all health care professionals involved in their care. Indeed, understanding of the patient's medical needs by multidisciplinary cleft teams is essential for effective planning and completion of holistic care. Involvement of specialists in paediatric dentistry sharing care with general dental practitioners is vital in providing appropriate oral health care and preventive support.

United Kingdom pediatric dentistry specialist views on the administration of articaine in children.

BACKGROUND: Lidocaine is the gold standard local anesthetic (LA) for UK pediatric dental treatment. Recent reports suggest frequent Articaine use in Europe and Canada, with evidence indicating more profound anesthesia. The aim of this study was to examine pediatric dentistry specialist experiences and practices relating to Articaine administration in the UK. METHODS: A literature review was followed by a survey using an anonymous 15-item electronic questionnaire, which was sent to 200 registered British Society of Pediatric Dentistry (BSPD) specialists. Descriptive analyses, Z score, chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, and Spearman's correlation test were performed. RESULTS: Sixty-one (30.5%) participants responded, and 12 (19.7%) indicated Articaine as their first line anesthetic. Articaine was used daily or weekly by 38 (62.3%) respondents, depending on the clinical context. Articaine was commonly used to avoid inferior alveolar nerve blocks and gain more profound anesthesia in abscessed or hypomineralized teeth. Participants reported significantly more adverse effects with lidocaine (Fisher's exact test, P < 0.0001) than with Articaine. Articaine was most often administered in children aged > 4 years via infiltration techniques. Only 15 (24.6%) respondents reported awareness of guidelines for Articaine use in pediatric patients. CONCLUSIONS: Articaine use in pediatric dentistry is common; however, evidence supporting its practice is limited. Several specialists follow conventions based on anecdotal evidence. Formulating guidance to aid decision-making when treating pediatric patients under LA would be beneficial.