Dog-assisted therapy in the dental clinic. Part B. Hazards and assessment of potential risks to the health and safety of the dental therapy dog.

Background: A dental therapy dog may help anxious patients in the dental clinic overcome their fear and facilitate the completion of necessary dental care. Dental clinic activities are associated with hazards that may pose potential risks to the health and safety of the dental therapy dog. Objectives: To describe potential hazards associated with risks to health and safety to therapy dogs in dental clinics and to present suggestions for risk minimisation by adopting best practices in dental clinic settings. Materials and method: Literature searches in Medline, http://Clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar for qualitative and quantitative assessments of occupational hazards and risks in dental clinics, in combination with a review of the reference list of the included studies. Identified hazards and risks were analysed relative to their relevance for the health and welfare of a therapy dog present in a dental clinic setting. Results: Workplace hazards in the dental clinic that apply to both humans and therapy dogs are allergies, sharps injury, eye injury, stress, rhinitis, hearing impairment, and other hazards. Additional concerns associated with risks for the dental therapy dog are situations involving erratic patient behaviour and threats if the patient is an undisclosed disease carrier. Risks to the health and safety of the dental therapy dog in the clinics are present but are low if the dental clinical staff and dog handlers comply with best practices. Conclusions: Best practice includes awareness amongst the clinic staff and the dog handler of all potential hazards in the dental clinic and on how to reduce these hazards as well as adverse events that may scare the dental therapy dog. The dental therapy dog team must be specially trained to work in a dental clinic. Each treatment session has to be exclusively tailored to that specific appointment and the individual patient.

Dog-assisted therapy in the dental clinic: Part A-Hazards and assessment of potential risks to the health and safety of humans.

Background: Dog-assisted therapy in the dental clinic may be an attractive alternative to sedation for anxious patients. Including a dental therapy dog in a clinical setting introduces new hazards and potential risks to health and safety for both humans and animal. Objectives: The study aims to describe potential hazards associated with risks to humans by having a therapy dog present in the dental clinic and to provide guidance on best practices to minimise and control risks for the patients, the dentist, and the dental clinic staff. Materials and Methods: Literature searches in Medline, http://Clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar for qualitative and quantitative assessments of hazards and risks associated with the use of therapy dogs in health care settings, in combination with a review of the reference list of the included studies. Identified hazards and risks were analysed with respect for the health and welfare of humans in a dental clinic setting that involves the presence of a therapy dog. Results: Potential risks to health and safety for humans in dental clinics that offer dog-assisted therapy can be categorised within four general categories of hazards: the dog as a source of zoonotic pathogens and human diseases, exposure to canine allergens, adverse animal behaviour, and dangers associated with high activity in a congested dental clinic operatory. Risks to humans are reduced by maintaining awareness amongst the dental clinic staff and the dog handler of all potential hazards in the dental clinic, and on how to reduce these hazards as well as adverse events that may scare the dental therapy dog. Conclusions: Risks to the health and safety of humans in the presence of therapy dog in the clinics are present but are low if the dental clinical staff and dog handlers comply with best practices.

Do adverse effects of dental materials exist? What are the consequences, and how can they be diagnosed and treated?

OBJECTIVES: All dental biomaterials release substances into the oral environment to a varying degree. Various preclinical biocompatibility test systems have been introduced, aiming at an evaluation of the potential risks of dental materials. Potential pathogenic effects of released substances from dental materials have been demonstrated. For the biocompatibility of a biomaterial, it is not only important that minimal diffusable substances are released when it is in body contact--the material must also fulfill the function for which it has been designed. This is also very much dependent on the material properties and its handling properties. The aim of this review was to generate an overview of the present status concerning adverse reactions among patients and personnel. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was performed using a defined search strategy in order to evaluate all MEDLINE-literature published between 1996 and 2006. RESULTS: The compilation of the literature available has revealed that the majority of studies have been carried out on patients compared with personnel. Adverse reactions towards dental materials do occur, but the prevalence and incidence are difficult to obtain. The results were essentially based on cohort studies. Clinical trials, especially randomized-controlled trials, are in the minority of all studies investigated, with the exception of composite and bonding studies, where clinical trials, but not randomized-controlled trials, represent the majority of studies. Patients and personnel were treated separately in the manuscript. Amalgam studies show the lowest degree of verified material-related diagnosis. Even if objective symptoms related to adverse reactions with polymer resin-based materials have been reported, postoperative sensitivity dominates reports concerning composites/bondings. Verified occupational effects among dental personnel show a low frequency of allergy/toxic reactions. Irritative hand eczema seemed to be more common than in the general population. CONCLUSIONS: Patient- and personnel-related studies are of variable quality and can be improved. There is a need for a better description of the content of materials. A registry for adverse effects of dental materials would be useful to detect the occurrence of low-incidence events.

Materials. Consensus report of Working Group 4.

The method used by the working group was an iterative process based upon a structured review of the relevant literature by a group of rapporteurs. The literature was searched using common databanks (e.g., Medline, Pubmed, Cochrane Library etc.), and also by performing manual searches in the non-indexed literature. The review papers were circulated to the members of the group before and during a conference that served as the basis for subsequent discussions. Each paper was subject to detailed collective analysis and subsequently modified on the basis of panel's discussion and referred to additional relevant literature where appropriate. The consensus statements were prepared after a detailed consideration of the papers submitted to the workshop by the working group. The papers were scrutinized, amended and approved by the group.