Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To compare treatment decisions about primary dentistry made by Japanese and English general dental practitioners (GDPs).

METHOD:

Four clinical scenarios were used to ascertain the clinical opinions of GDPs about what treatment to offer a 6-year-old boy with a carious molar. The first and second scenarios were a single distal and a distalocclusal cavity in a vital tooth without pain. The third was a large distal-occlusal cavity in a non-vital tooth without pain. The fourth was large distal-occlusal cavity in a non-vital tooth with pain. The participants were 234 GDPs in Japan and 322 GDPs in England.

RESULTS:

In the first scenario, 62.2% of Japanese GDPs preferred traditional restorative care compared with 34.7% of English GDPs. In the second scenario, Japanese participants were less likely to offer atraumatic treatment (16.5% vs. 34.9%). In the third scenario, Japanese dentists displayed a greater tendency to open the pulp chamber (55.2% vs. 7.6%). In the final scenario, 71% of Japanese GDPs would open the pulp chamber, whereas 50.3% of English GDPs favoured extraction.

CONCLUSION:

Japanese and English GDPs differed substantially in their views about the best treatment for a young child with a carious molar.