Skip to main content

Table 3 MIH management considerations, source of information, and clinical training demand according to study participants

From: Dentists’ perception, knowledge, and clinical management of molar-incisor-hypomineralisation in Kuwait: a cross-sectional study

Question

GDPs

N = 115

N (%)

Paediatric Dentists

N = 41

N (%)

Other Dental Specialists

N = 65

N (%)

X 2

P value

Type of dental materials often use in treating MIH tooth?

 Amalgam

10

(8.7)

9

(22.0)

11

(16.9)

5.407

0.067

 Resin composite

75

(65.2)

24

(58.5)

44

(64.7)

0.95

0.622

 GIC

47

(40.9)

14

(34.1)

18

(35.7)

3.196

0.202

 PMCs

45

(39.1) b

20

(48.8) b

6

(9.2) a

23.42

0.000*

 Compomer

2

(2.6)

4

(9.8)

4

(6.2)

3.53

0.171

Barrier in performing MIH management

 Long treatment time

44

(38.3) a

6

(14.6) b

14

(21.5) b

10.66

.005*

 Child’s behaviour

70

(60.9) a

20

(48.8) b

11

(16.9) b

32.51

.000*

 Difficulty in achieving local anesthesia

27

(23.5)

9

(22.0)

8

(12.3)

3.381

0.184

 Insufficient training to treat children with MIH

36

(31.3) a

0

 

12

(18.5) b

17.99

.000*

Are you receiving any information on MIH?

 Yes

75

(65.2)

34

(82.9)

44

(67.7)

4.552

0.103

 Dental journals

29

(25.2)

26

(63.4)

33

(55.8)

  

 Continuing education

25

(21.7)

15

(36.6)

12

(18.5)

  

 Brochures or pamphlets

4

(3.5)

2

(4.9)

5

(7.7)

  

 Internet

43

(37.4)

23

(56.1)

29

(44.6)

  

 Books

27

(23.5)

8

(19.5)

12

(18.5)

  

 Others

7

(6.1)

0

 

0

   

Need for clinical training regarding tooth hypomineralisation

 

 Diagnosis

21

(18.3)

3

(7.3)

8

(12.3)

2.153

0.341

 Aetiology

11

(9.6)

6

(14.6)

7

(10.8)

  

 Treatment

33

(28.7)

8

(19.5)

16

(24.6)

  

 All

39

(33.9)

17

(41.5)

24

(36.9)

  
  1. * p < 0.05 = significant difference
  2. a-b values within rows with different superscript letters are significantly different (P < 0.05) using post hoc test
  3. n and % in the table represent those of YES answers only