Vital bleaching for children with dental anomalies: EAPD members’ survey

Abstract

Aim Understand EAPD members' practices of vital bleaching for children with dental anomalies. Methods An anonymous online survey sent via EAPD in January 2019, consisting of 13 questions with possible multiple answers and free text. Results 110 responses from 24 countries were obtained. The majority worked in hospitals/universities (n = 69, 63%) or private practices (n = 50, 46%) and were specialists (n = 62, 57%) or senior academics (n = 35, 32%). Most respondents (n = 74 68%) did not provide vital bleaching for children. 88 respondents (80%) belonged to EU: of these, 46 (52%) were not aware of bleaching regulations. For respondents who provided bleaching 26 (72%) undertook home bleaching, using 10% carbamide peroxide (n = 21, 58%), most commonly for 2 weeks (n = 14, 39%), following establishment of the permanent dentition (n = 21, 58%). Deciding factors included: extent (n = 27, 75%) and shade (n = 26, 72%) of discolouration and child being teased by peers (n = 23, 64%). Main reasons for not bleaching included: concerns with side effects (n = 41; 55%) and not agreeing with bleaching (n = 23, 31%). Dentists who did not bleach managed a range of conditions, most frequently molar-incisor hypomineralisation (n = 57; 77%). The majority provided composite restorations with removal of tooth structure (n = 50; 68%) with a number opting for no treatment (n = 27, 37%). Conclusion This study shows wide variations in treatment of children's dental anomalies across Europe. Fears of adverse effects and personal beliefs seemed to be the main deterrents to bleaching in children. Clinicians who provided bleaching tended to opt for more conservative techniques and to take children's concerns into consideration.Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

An update of treatment modalities in children and adolescents with teeth affected by molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH): a systematic review

“…Several factors should be considered before choosing a treatment option, or a combination of treatment options for managing MIH-affected incisors. These include the age of the child, cooperative-ability, size, colour and number of opacities, and the psychological impact these have on the child, both in the short- and long-term (Lygidakis et al 2010 ; Monteiro et al 2020 ).…”

Best clinical practice guidance for clinicians dealing with children presenting with molar-incisor-hypomineralisation (MIH): an updated European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry policy document

“…It is available as hydrogen peroxide (up to 6%) or carbamide peroxide (10% or 16%) gels used in custom-made trays. Its use by clinicians in Europe varies (Monteiro et al 2020 ). Side effects include gingival irritation and sensitivity, and these should be considered seriously particularly when used in younger children.…”

Patient-reported outcome measure for children and young people with amelogenesis imperfecta

“…However, there are barriers to its use and it may not be suitable for all presentations of AI, and particular attention should be paid to the patient's baseline level of sensitivity. 17,18 Over half of the sample was 'mid-treatment' , which is reflective of the lengthy and evolving treatment plans for children and young people with AI, especially in this age group, as they move from the primary to permanent dentition. This finding is consistent with previous studies, showing that patients with AI attend more dental appointments than unaffected individuals.…”