c



  

 

` p EAP Guidelines for use of Radiographs in children

-p RGs still taken if pts has restos or caries
-p Taken at ages 5, 8-9, `
-`
-p Other pts: surfaces adj restorations have X increased risk, if 3͛s can͛t be palpated by age `
(take a radiograph)

p linical effects of N
O sedation
-p At 5 concentration
‘p Open hands (9)
‘p èimp legs (8`)
‘p àmile (66)
‘p ids liked it (95)
‘p Reduction in psychomotor ability is small
-p Other: inc likely to be drowsy, lightheaded with age and previous exposure to N
O
3 p Effectiveness of èA in Paedo
-p Best predictors of ineffective pain control = anxiety, endo procedures and exo͛s
-p Other: dentists tend to underestimate # of kids without effective anasthesia
-p Better analgesia: B + èNB > B > infiltration for mnd
 p Randomized trial of Mnd Anaesthesia techniques + N
O
-p No difference bw IANB vs infiltration wrt analgesia and discomfrt
-p (based on pulpotomies)
5 p Approximal caries in young adults following 3 dif ferent F rinse Reg
-p F rinsing provides additional benefit to the paste for interprox decay
-p Efficacy: no sig difference in caries profession bt groups
-p `st 3 and last 3 days of semester = best outcome
-p `3-`6 y/o => FMR
6 p àealant and F varnish in caries
-p Occlusal caries incidence in 6͛s @ 9yo was 77 controls, 55 varnish,
7 sealant
-p Varnish effectiveness is lost at discontinuation àèOWè
-p Other: caries risk in 6͛s
X for ` st year vs
nd year
-p 6yo-8yo => Fà
7 p The fate of carious primary teeth in kids attending GDà
-p Majority of carious teeth naturally exfoliate
-p No difference in propns teeth exo͛d for pain/sepsis whether carious of unrestored, teeth,
type, cavity type or car of caries `st recorded -> sole objective of avoiding pain/sepsis
doesn͛t justify restoring teeth (no ortho, bacteria counts )
8 p Predicting caries from permanent teeth from primary teeth
-p aries in primary teeth -> 85 predictive value for secondary
-p Primary molars most predictive
-p aries in primary -> risk increased X3 in
ndary
 -p Other: èow àEà leads to increased risk in primary, high àEà increase risk in secondary
9 p GD͛s view on àà in primary teeth
-p 7 used àà͛s
-p Main reason fornot: technique, pt cooperation, time, rebate
` plassII primary molar cavities restored with GI vs RMGI
-p RMGI failure rate
-36, consistently superior
-p GI failure 6-6
-p Increased success with specialist, dam, èA, small-mod lesions, conditioning
-p Don͛t use GI in classII ʹ RMGI O in small-mod
`` pompomer and amalgam in primary classII over
years
-p No significant difference with caries or bulk #
-p ompomer has increased wear, amalgam increased marginal adaptation
-p Increased overhangs in amalgams, but more porosity in compomers
`
pFormocresole vs Ferric àulphate
-p No significant difference, no different with mean followup time
-p Findings with clinical and radiographic
`3 pEffectiveness of  pulpotomy Techniques
-p Formocresol 85, èaser 78, Fe
àO 86, aOh
53
-p Only aOH
significant different
 mo followup
-p Regular RG needed bc failures cannot be detected clinically
` pTx Planning for spaced mixed dentition
-p For every `mm of bone coverage, 6mo should be allowed for eruption
`5 pA prospective study of secondary incisor replantation
-p Most significant predictor of resportion =EO time
-p In most cases, resportion detected within
yrs
`6 pMutans àtrep count following early Tx
-p Increased M counts with decreased BW, increase parent count, preterm birth, time since
treatment, male gender and education
-p Decrease M at the end of treatment, OHI given
-p TX for E -> increase Mà counts in future
`7 pAvulsion and Intrusion
-p PDè regeneration only possible if replanted within minutes
-p Intrusion beyond 6mm -> no PDè regeneration
-p w/intrusions, amt is most critical prognostic factor
-p less then 3mm good (probably reposition self but necrosis likely)
-p more than 6mm poor (active reposition and endo to prevent restoration