Start practicing

Pediatric Dentistry · patient case with 3 questions

Uncooperative child with a disruptive parent

Patient: Male, 5 years old

Chief Complaint: Brought by his mother for restorative treatment of two carious primary molars.

Background: First dental visit was traumatic. He has since refused to open his mouth at two consecutive appointments.

Current Findings: Frankl behaviour rating 4 (definitely negative) — he cries loudly, refuses examination and will not sit in the chair. His mother repeatedly interrupts, contradicts the explanations being given, and speaks harshly to both the child and the dental team.

Question 1

What is the most appropriate management?

  1. Refer the child to a pediatric dentist
  2. Continue treating the child while disregarding the mother
  3. Discharge the patient from the practice
  4. Confront the mother directly and tell her to stop interrupting
Show answer and explanation

Correct answer: A. Refer the child to a pediatric dentist

  • A. CORRECT. A definitively negative child combined with a parent who actively undermines communication exceeds what routine behaviour guidance in general practice can manage. A pediatric specialist has the training, the environment and the full range of behaviour-management options — including protective stabilisation with consent, sedation and general anaesthesia — plus experience in managing difficult parental dynamics. Referral serves the child.
  • B. Ignoring a disruptive parent while attempting treatment on an uncooperative child is unsafe and ethically untenable — the parent holds consent and the child's safety depends on a controlled environment.
  • C. Discharge abandons a child with active disease and no alternative arrangements. Referral transfers care; discharge terminates it.
  • D. Confrontation escalates. It also models exactly the hostile communication that is already frightening the child. Addressing the mother calmly and privately is appropriate; confronting her is not.

Note: The Frankl scale, worth memorising: 1 = definitely positive · 2 = positive · 3 = negative · 4 = definitely negative. Some sources invert the numbering — read whether the stem describes the BEHAVIOUR or just cites the number.

Permanent page for this question

Question 2

At a later visit nitrous oxide is planned, but the mother reveals the child ate a full meal shortly before arriving. What should be done?

  1. Proceed without discussion, since nitrous oxide is very safe
  2. Explain the risks to the mother and proceed only if she consents after being informed
  3. Cancel and reschedule without further explanation
  4. Switch to oral midazolam instead
Show answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Explain the risks to the mother and proceed only if she consents after being informed

  • A. Proceeding without disclosure bypasses informed consent, whatever the actual level of risk.
  • B. A recent meal raises the risk of nausea and vomiting under nitrous oxide, and vomiting in a partially sedated child carries an aspiration risk. The proper course is to disclose that risk to the parent, discuss the alternatives, and let her make an informed decision. Nitrous oxide is minimal sedation with preserved protective airway reflexes, so proceeding after informed consent is defensible — but the disclosure is not optional.
  • C. Rescheduling may well be the outcome, but it should follow the conversation rather than replace it. The parent is entitled to the information and the choice.
  • D. Substituting a deeper level of sedation makes an aspiration risk WORSE, not better, and requires stricter fasting.

Note: AAPD guidance: light fasting is preferred before nitrous oxide precisely because nausea and vomiting are the commonest adverse effects. Deeper levels of sedation require full NPO status — generally 2 hours for clear liquids and 6 hours for a light meal.

Permanent page for this question

Question 3

A 5-year-old attends for a routine examination. No caries and no plaque are found, and open interproximal contacts are present throughout. What radiographs are indicated?

  1. No radiographs are indicated at this visit
  2. A panoramic plus two bitewings
  3. Two bitewings plus two periapicals
  4. A panoramic alone
Show answer and explanation

Correct answer: A. No radiographs are indicated at this visit

  • A. Bitewing radiographs exist to detect interproximal lesions that cannot be seen clinically. When ALL the contacts are open, every proximal surface is directly visible on examination — the radiograph adds no diagnostic information it could not already have. Under ADA/FDA selection criteria and ALARA, imaging without a diagnostic yield is not justified.
  • B. A panoramic is not a screening tool for a caries-free 5-year-old. It is reserved for assessing growth, development, pathology or trauma.
  • C. Periapicals in a symptom-free child with no clinical findings expose the patient without indication.
  • D. A panoramic alone has the same problem — no clinical question that it would answer.

Note: ⚑ Note the contrast with the item on RECALL INTERVAL. The source separately records a 7–12 month recall for a similar child; current ADA/AAPD selection criteria place a LOW-RISK child with open contacts at 12–24 months. Two different questions, and the group should carry both numbers.

Permanent page for this question

Practice patient cases Pediatric Dentistry study notes