Abstract
Dental child health records have an informal character and act as a reminder of early dental visits (FU1a-c, FUPr, FLA). Long-term prevention should take place from newborns to the age of 6. However, each chamber area (n=17) has its own dental child health record (n=14). The evaluation of the formalities and the content was the aim of this study.Fourteen dental child health records were evaluated by 12 dentists with different specializations (2 each in pediatric dentistry, periodontics, prosthetics, tooth preservation, orthodontics, no specialization) from July 1st, 2023 - November 30th, 2023. The dentists used a catalogue of criteria with 81 items. The validated criteria catalogue consisted of questions about quality (Witten List, DISCERN, Hamburg Model of Comprehensibility) and other relevant topics. A descriptive analysis and statistical evaluations (Kruskal-Wallis test, asymptomatic significance test), a correlation analysis of the quality of patient information (Spearman correlation), a binary logistic regression analysis of the variables specialization of the examiner (in pediatric dentistry/not in pediatric dentistry), gender (female/male), professional experience (≤7 years/>7 years) and chamber area (eastern/western chamber areas) were carried out.The dental child health record from Bremen/Schleswig-Holstein (identical) was rated best in terms of content median (25%/75% percentile): 100.50(100.00/101.75), the dental child health record of Brandenburg was rated the worst 69, 00(66.50/73.00); p>1.00). There was good correlation between DISCERN and the Hamburg Model of Comprehensibility (ρ=0.565 (p<0.001)). According to the regression analysis, only the chamber area showed a significant influence on the content (p<0.001).There was a strong discrepancy in the quality and quantity of the dental child health records. It is important to strive towards a standardized form and congruence in content similar to that which already exists for the children's medical examination booklets.