Dental injury in anaesthesia: a tertiary hospital’s experience

Tan, Yanni; Loganathan, Nivan; Thinn, Kyu Kyu; Liu, Eugene Hern Choon; Loh, Ne-Hooi Will

doi:10.1186/s12871-018-0569-6

Cited by 23 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In that study, supraglottic airway devices accounted for 15% of the claims. This has also been shown in another study where 14% of dental injuries occurred after the use of supraglottic devices …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Dental injuries in relation to general anaesthesia—A retrospective study

Christensen

Baekgaard

Rasmussen

2019

Acta Anaesthesiol Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Dental injuries may occur during general anaesthesia, especially during airway management. The aim of this study was to describe cases of dental injury related to general anaesthesia, focusing on the type and extent of the injuries as well as the timing of recognition. Method: We reviewed the nationwide electronic database available at the Danish Patient Compensation Association and scrutinized all claims classified as possible dental injuries in relation to general anaesthesia between 2007 and 2017. Results: During the 10-year study period, there were 2523 claims for compensation related to anaesthesia. Of these, 552 (21.9%) were cases of possible dental injuries following general anaesthesia. The most commonly injured teeth were the central maxillary incisors with 174 (25.3%) cases related to the left and 118 (17.2%) cases related to the right incisor. The most common injuries were fractures (41.2%) and subluxations (25.9%). Airway management included the use of Macintosh laryngoscope in 296 (64.4%) cases and a supraglottic airway device in 69 (15%) cases. Claims were more frequently approved if more than two intubation attempts were used (100% vs 82.8%, RR = 0.83, 95% CI [0.78-0.88], P = 0.0037). Injuries recognized in-hospital were more frequently approved than injuries recognized after discharge (91.6% vs 70.7%, RR = 0.83, 95% CI [0.70-0.86], P < 0.0001). Conclusion:The most commonly reported dental injury related to general anaesthesia in the Danish Patient Compensation Association database was a fracture. Claims were more frequently approved if more than two intubation attempts were used and if the injury was recognized in-hospital.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Dental injuries in relation to general anaesthesia—A retrospective study

Christensen

Baekgaard

Rasmussen

2019

Acta Anaesthesiol Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It should be considered that dental trauma may be caused by the initial trauma or may be iatrogenic especially after endotracheal intubation [ 23 , 24 ]. It was identified that existing dental anomalies increases the risk for dental injury by endotracheal intubation in a 12-fold manner [ 24 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental Trauma on whole Body Trauma CT—An underreported finding

Meyer

Schramm

Bach

et al. 2021

Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The prevalence of dental injuries (DI) in polytrauma patients is unknown. The purpose of our study was to identify the frequency of dental injuries on whole body CTs acquired in a trauma setting and to estimate how often they are correctly reported by the radiologist. Methods In the time period between 2006 and 2018 the radiological database of one university hospital was screened for whole-body trauma CTs. A total of 994 CTs were identified and re-evaluated. Results Dental injuries were identified in 127 patients (12.8% of patients). There were 27 women (21.3%) and 100 men (78.7%) with a mean age of 51.0 ± 18.9 years (range 10–96 years). Regarding localization, most findings involved the molars (n = 107, 37.4%), followed by the incisors (n = 81, 28.3%), premolars (n = 59, 20.6%) and canines (n = 39, 13.7%). Most common findings were as follows: luxations (n = 49, 45.8%), followed by crown fractures (n = 46, 43%), root fractures (n = 10, 9.3%), extrusions (n = 1, 0.9%), and intrusions (n = 1, 0.9%). Only 15 findings (11.8% of all patients with dental injuries) were described in the original radiological reports. Conclusion DI had a high occurrence in polytrauma patients. A high frequency of underreported dental trauma findings was identified. Radiologists reporting whol-body trauma CT should be aware of possible dental trauma to report the findings adequately.

show abstract

“…Ultimately, 23 references meeting the selection criteria were included. 7-29 A flow diagram detailing this process is shown in Figure 3 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Dental Injury Rates in Perioperative Intubation and Suspension Laryngoscopy for Otolaryngology Procedures

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Direct laryngoscopy is an essential skill during perioperative intubation and otolaryngology procedures. Dental injury is a common complication of direct laryngoscopy. However, the technique and tools used by anesthesiologists, nurse anesthetists, and others during perioperative intubation and by ear, nose, and throat surgeons for their procedures are different. The purpose of this review is to explore the literature for all studies detailing rates of dental injury in each of these settings and to compare them to see if the approaches have a significant difference in rate of dental injury. Data Sources PubMed. Review Methods A comprehensive search of PubMed was performed through February 2021 with search terms “dental” and “intubation” or “laryngoscopy.” PRISMA guidelines were followed. Studies documenting rates of dental injuries during intubation or during laryngologic procedures were included, and the 2 groups were compared. Results Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria: 17 in the perioperative intubation group and 6 in the suspension laryngoscopy group. There was an increased incidence of dental injury in the perioperative intubation group (4.86%) as compared with the suspension laryngoscopy group (1.70%). Conclusions The difference in dental injury rate between the groups could be due to the differences in direct laryngoscopy technique or tools used, the presence vs absence of a dental guard, or a combination of these factors. More studies need to be performed to develop definitive and specific conclusions to recommend changes that prevent dental injury.

show abstract

Dental injury in anaesthesia: a tertiary hospital’s experience

Cited by 23 publications

References 9 publications

Dental injuries in relation to general anaesthesia—A retrospective study

Dental injuries in relation to general anaesthesia—A retrospective study

Dental Trauma on whole Body Trauma CT—An underreported finding

Comparison of Dental Injury Rates in Perioperative Intubation and Suspension Laryngoscopy for Otolaryngology Procedures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About