An investigation of accidental ingestion during dental procedures

Abstract

Twenty-three cases of accidental ingestion during dental procedures, which occurred at the Center for Dental Clinics of Hokkaido University Hospital between 2006 and 2010, were analyzed retrospectively. We examined not only the objects ingested, but also details of the circumstances (treated teeth, types of treatment, professional experience of the practitioners). Except for two cases (an unidentified endodontic file and the tip of an ultrasonic scaler, which were recovered by vacuuming), the other 21 accidentally ingested objects were all found in the digestive tract, and none in the respiratory tract, by radiographic examination of the chest and abdomen. The ingested objects were mostly metal restorations (inlays or onlays) or prostheses (crowns or cores). Ingestion occurred more frequently during treatment of lower molars, and when procedures were being conducted by practitioners with less than 5 years of experience. No adverse events related to ingestion were reported. The present study found no cases of aspiration or complications related to the ingested objects. However, considering the risk of life-threatening emergencies related to accidental aspiration and ingestion, dentists must take meticulous precautions and be ready to deal with this kind of emergency during dental procedures.

Accidental ingestion of an air-water syringe tip during routine dental treatment: a case report

“…A correlation between the dentist's experience and dental accidents has been reported. It appears that accidental ingestion is more likely to occur when dental practitioners have had less than five years experience after graduation (2). This is because they have less ability to perform normal preventive measures, either because of limited time for individual dental treatment or lack of experience.…”

“…This is because they have less ability to perform normal preventive measures, either because of limited time for individual dental treatment or lack of experience. However, this does not exclude experienced dental practitioners, as it has been reported that they can also make mistakes in this respect (1,2).…”

“…As a precaution, the swallowed foreign object should be assessed radiographically until it is egested. The patient should be closely monitored and if symptoms of perforation occur, such as pain or vomiting, tenderness or abdominal guarding, or if the object has not passed through the gastrointestinal tract after 2 weeks, then surgical intervention should be considered (2). It has been reported that as soon as a foreign object has reached the stomach, there is a greater than 90% chance that it will pass through the gastrointestinal tract as a result of peristaltic movement without complications, usually after a 7-10-day period (8).…”

“…One such event is accidental ingestion or aspiration of dental prostheses, instruments, or their components by the patient during treatment. Previous retrospective studies have indicated that the incidence of such events is 0.004%, ingestion being the more common (1,2).…”

Perianalinis pūlinys, diagnozuotas praėjus daug laiko po praryto svetimkūnio: klinikinis atvejis

“…Japonijoje atlikto tyrimo duomenimis, jatrogeninio prarijimo ar aspiracijos odontologinės procedūros metu tikimybė -0,004 % [5]. Tai gali būti bet kurie objektai, kurie procedūros metu nepritvirtinti gali atsidurti burnos ertmėje.…”