The effectiveness of preformed tooth protectors during endotracheal intubation: an upper jaw model.

BACKGROUND: In anesthetic practice, tooth damage may impair patient safety and is a common reason for litigation. The use of dental shields may reduce this complication. In this study, we examined the effectiveness of dental shields for altering the force on the teeth during endotracheal intubation. METHODS: Five preformed dental shields (Endoragard, Ormco, Nouveau Dispositif (ND), PEB, and Camo) were evaluated in three different categories: (a) horizontal force reduction, (b) axial force reduction, and (c) impact on the view of the oral cavity. Force reduction was examined by using an upper jaw model. The upper incisors of the model were covered with each of the dental shields and then loaded with a force of 150 N via a blade of a laryngoscope directed to the maxillary left central incisor (tooth 9). The force distributed to the four maxillary central and lateral incisors by the dental shield was also measured by strain gauges placed to estimate the force applied to each tooth. The reduction in oral view was determined by measuring the thickness of each dental shield with a micrometer. RESULTS: Dental shield Ormco Sports-Guard achieved the highest force reduction results, followed by Camo and Endoragard. ND and PEB showed poor, but statistically significant, force reduction with either the worst axial (ND) or horizontal (PEB) results. In contrast, Ormco was the most voluminous model, followed by ND and Camo. PEB and Endoragard were the thinnest models. CONCLUSIONS: Preformed dental shields are useful to reduce the force applied to the teeth and potentially reduce the probability of tooth damage during laryngoscopy. However, the shield with the most force reduction capability is rather large and also expensive, making general use impossible. Further prospective studies are needed to evaluate efficacy and safety of tooth protectors.

Analysis of complications following alveolar distraction osteogenesis and implant placement in the partially edentulous mandible.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate complications before, during, and after vertical alveolar distraction osteogenesis and to assess the survival rate of dental implants placed in distracted bone. STUDY DESIGN: In a consecutive series, 37 patients with 45 alveolar ridge deficiencies of the partially edentulous mandible were treated with 14 intraosseous and 31 subperiosteal distraction devices. Seventy-two dental implants could be placed at the time of distractor removal and 21 implants at a second stage. RESULTS: Complications associated with the distraction procedure affected 75.7% of patients. The majority of complications were of minor nature with the exception of fractures of basal bone (n = 3), fracture of transport segment (n = 1), breakage of distractor (n = 1), and severe mechanical problems (n = 3). Eleven secondary grafting procedures were necessary to allow the placement of dental implants. Implant survival was 95.7% (mean postloading follow-up: 35.7 months). CONCLUSION: Vertical alveolar distraction osteogenesis is not an uncomplicated procedure; however, long-term survival of dental implants inserted into distracted areas is satisfactory.