Abstract
BACKGROUND: The utilization of evidence-based approaches is crucial to achieving long-term positive outcomes for treatment performed chairside or under general anesthesia. The study aimed to evaluate if treatment modality (at the chairside or under general anesthesia) affects prognosis and the need for re-treatment. METHODS: Oral-hygiene, gingival, and plaque indexes were recorded during the control appointment. The success of all treatments was evaluated according to the scoring of particular evaluation criteria. RESULTS: A total of 1066 dental procedures were performed on 92 children. Plaque index scores were higher for patients treated under general anesthesia. The success rate of restorative procedures was 82.5% under general anesthesia and 80.6% at the chairside. There was no statistically significant difference between the mean number of restorative treatments and the need for re-treatment between general anesthesia or chairside (p = 0.649, p = 0.311). The mean number of unsuccessful endodontic treatments performed under general anesthesia was higher than performed chairside. Only two out of thirty stainless-steel crowns were decemented, all performed under general anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: The high volume of restoration failure due to secondary caries has highlighted the need for alternative approaches to caries management, especially given the risks associated with repeat general anesthetic.