European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 27–31 | Cite as

Differences in treatment approach between Dutch paediatric dentists and general practitioners, a case control study

  • D. KuinEmail author
  • J. S. J. Veerkamp
Scientific Article


AIM: This case control study was to assess whether paediatric dentists perform significantly more diagnostic, preventive and curative care in a clinical setting then do general dental practitioners. METHODS: 16 paediatric dentists were approached and a matching control group of 16 general dental practitioners drawn from an insurance random list were selected based on matching age, practice composition and year of graduation. They were asked by mail to participate. Positive respondents were visited. All children seen during the visit were included in this study. During intra-oral inspection DMFS/dmfs was clinically scored, as were the availability of bitewings, gender, presence of fissure sealants, visibility of plaque and gingivitis and presence of fistulas. STATISTICS: Statistical analysis was carried out by using SPSS 15, p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Paediatric dentists treat a greater number of younger children (p<0.05), placed more restorations and sealants (p<0.01), take more bitewing radiographs (p<0.01) and give a similar level of care to all children irrespective of their age compared to children seen by general dental practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: Paediatric dentists perform significantly more diagnostic, preventive and curative care in the clinical situation for 0–6 year old children than do general dental practitioners.

Key words

Paediatric dentist general dental practitioner treatment approach restoration 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Espelid I, Mejare I, Weerheijm K. EAPD guidelines for use of radiographs in children, EurJ Paediatr Dent 2003; 4:40–48.Google Scholar
  2. Hanes CM, Myers DR, Dushku JC, Thompson WO, Durham LC. Radiographic recommendations for the pediatric dentition: comparison of general dentists and pediatric dentists. Pediatric Dent 1990; 12:212–216.Google Scholar
  3. Hanes CM, Myers DR, Dushku JC. The influence of practice type, region, and age on treatment recommendations for primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 1992; 14:240–245.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Heijdra J, Veerkamp JSJ. Diagnostic and restorative behaviours in Dutch dentists’ pediatric dental care Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2007; 9:158–163.Google Scholar
  5. Jensma MA, Veerkamp JS. Treatability of children according to Dutch dentists. Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd 2008; 115:420–422.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Jensma MA, Veerkamp JS. A comparison of paediatric dentists’ and general dental practitioners’ care patterns in paediatric dental care. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2010; 11:93–96.Google Scholar
  7. Lillehagen M, Grindefjord M, Mejàre I. Detection of Approximal Caries by Clinical and Radiographic Examination in 9-Year-Old Swedish Children. Caries Res 2007; 41:177–185.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Schuller AA, Poorterman JH. Trends in oral healthcare. Caries prevalence and frequency of visits to the dentist for checkups. Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd 2006; 113:303–307.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Taylor GK, Macpherson LMD. An investigation into the use of bitewing radiography in children in Greater Glasgow. British Dental Journal 2004; 196:563–568.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ten Berge, Veerkamp JSJ, Hoogstraten J: The etiology of childhood dental fear: the role of dental and conditioning experiences. J of Anxiety Disorders 2002; 16:321–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of Paediatric DentistryACTAAmsterdamthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations