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

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.