Implications, prevention and management of subcutaneous emphysema during endodontic treatment

Battrum, D. E.; Gutmann, James L.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-9657.1995.tb00470.x

Cited by 25 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Evaporating adhesive solvents and hydrogen-bonded water from hydrophilic adhesives is difficult even for crown dentin (104,105). To date, there is no data on how this may be performed efficaciously inside root canals without avoiding over-thinning of the adhesive (106,107) or inadvertently introducing air forcefully beyond the root apex that may result in subcutaneous emphysema (108,109). Even when the effect of dentin permeability in endodontically treated teeth is minimal (110), entrapment of residual moisture within the root canal can result in the permeation of this unbound water through hydrophilic adhesive layers (111), and its expression in the form of water droplets on the adhesive surface along the post space (112) or root canal.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monoblocks in Root Canals: A Hypothetical or a Tangible Goal

Tay

Pashley

2007

Journal of Endodontics

369

314

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term "monoblock" has become a familiar term in the endodontic literature with recent interest in the application of dentin adhesive technology to endodontics. Endodontic "monoblocks" have generated controversial discussions among academicians and clinicians as to whether they are able to improve the quality of seal in root fillings and to strengthen roots. This review attempts to provide a broader meaning to the term "monoblock" and see how this definition may be applied to the materials that have been used in the past and present for rehabilitation of the root canal space. The potential of currently available bondable materials to achieve mechanically homogeneous units with root dentin is then discussed in relation to the classical concept in which the term "monoblock" was first employed in restorative dentistry, and subsequently in endodontics.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monoblocks in Root Canals: A Hypothetical or a Tangible Goal

Tay

Pashley

2007

Journal of Endodontics

369

314

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Air emphysema is defined as the abnormal presence of air under pressure along or between facial plates (171). Many cases reports are available from the 1920s when drying of cavities with hand‐held devices was replaced by drying with compressed air from the dental unit (129).…”

Section: Anatomical Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many cases reports are available from the 1920s when drying of cavities with hand‐held devices was replaced by drying with compressed air from the dental unit (129). The use of a high‐speed handpiece in restorative dentistry or the use of compressed air during surgery have been reported as causes of subcutaneous emphysema as well (171). Battrum & Gutmann (171), in their exhaustive review of emphysema of endodontic origin, report 30 cases in the dental literature due to endodontic treatment; Shovelton (172) presented 11 cases.…”

Section: Anatomical Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complications during root canal irrigation

Hülsmann¹,

Rödig²,

Nordmeyer³

2007

Endodontic Topics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although endodontic irrigants are generally considered to be safe, severe complications can occur during or as a consequence of root canal irrigation. However, no data on the incidence of irrigation incidents could be found. In the following paper, a review is presented on the possible incidents that may occur during root canal irrigation with different irrigation solutions, the sequelae, as well as prevention and therapy of such intra‐ and post‐operative problems.

show abstract

“…Earlier narrative reviews have addressed SCE occurring during dental treatment in general (Shovelton , Heyman & Babayof , McKenzie & Rosenberg ) but only one review has focused specifically on SCE occurring in relation to root canal treatment (Battrum & Gutmann ) and several additional case reports have been published since then (Bekiroglu & Rout , Hülsmann & Hahn , Sujeet & Shankar , Uyanık et al . , An et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subcutaneous emphysema in patients undergoing root canal treatment: a systematic review of the factors affecting its development and management

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Subcutaneous emphysema is an infrequent mishap during root canal treatment which, in rare cases, can lead to severe complications. Aim To systematically review the literature on the factors affecting the development of subcutaneous emphysema during root canal treatment, and on its management. Data sources An electronic search was conducted in EMBASE (1947–2018), LILACS (1982–2018), PubMed (1950–2018), SciELO (1997–2018), Scopus (1970–2018), Web of Science (1900–2018) and two grey literature databases. Moreover, all issues of nine journals and four endodontic textbooks were hand‐searched. Study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions The retrieved studies were screened by two reviewers to select clinical studies, case reports or case series describing subcutaneous emphysema that developed during or immediately after root canal treatment in adult patients. Study appraisal and synthesis methods Included studies were critically appraised according to a custom list of quality requirements. The extracted data were arranged in tables, and combined through a narrative synthesis. Results The search retrieved 99 unique articles. Thirty six case reports and 15 case series describing a total of 65 cases of subcutaneous emphysema were included in this review. The methodological quality was medium. Reported cases of emphysema more often involved females and maxillary teeth. Drying of the root canal system with air under pressure, inadvertent extrusion of hydrogen peroxide through the apical foramen, the air‐water spray produced by handpieces or laser devices, and the use of ozone gas were the most commonly suspected causes. Its management involved prescription of antibiotics and NSAIDs/analgesics, local application of ice packs or compresses and hospitalization. The signs and symptoms resolved completely within 1‐17 days. Limitations Case reports and case series are a low level of evidence. Conclusions and implications of key findings Subcutaneous emphysema can develop during both nonsurgical and surgical root canal treatment. Pressurized air streams or air‐water sprays should not be directed towards the root canals or areas with mucosal discontinuity. None of the management approaches were clearly related to expedited recovery. Guidelines should be developed in order to avoid unnecessary or potentially harmful interventions.

show abstract

Implications, prevention and management of subcutaneous emphysema during endodontic treatment

Cited by 25 publications

References 16 publications

Monoblocks in Root Canals: A Hypothetical or a Tangible Goal

Monoblocks in Root Canals: A Hypothetical or a Tangible Goal

Complications during root canal irrigation

Subcutaneous emphysema in patients undergoing root canal treatment: a systematic review of the factors affecting its development and management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About