Improving pain management for children having dental extractions under general anaesthesia.

Children provided with general anaesthesia for dental extractions at East Surrey Hospital were audited to determine the percentage of children who were prescribed adequate pain management in accordance with guidance published by the Association of Paediatric Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland. Three audit cycles were completed. Data were collected retrospectively through case note review. The results from the first cycle showed that only 47% of children were prescribed with a recommended analgesic regimen. Implementation of change included the development of a protocol for analgesic delivery, which was disseminated to the anaesthetic and dental teams. Full compliance with the audit standards was then demonstrated in the second and third cycles. This audit demonstrates the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration in order to provide high standards of care for children undergoing dental extractions under general anaesthesia. The protocol developed could be applied to other surgical day case procedures for children to improve the patient experience.

Infection Control in Dental Anesthesiology: A Time for Preliminary Reconsideration of Current Practices.

Relegated to clinical afterthought, the topic of infection control has never taken center stage in our modern dental sedation and anesthesiology practices. Surgical and procedural masks, gloves, gowns, protective eyewear, and appropriate surgical attire have remained de rigueur in both fashion and custom for decades. However, the emergence of certain seminal events throughout health care history has driven mandated changes when practitioners, staff, patients, and the surrounding communities were exposed or put at risk of exposure to infectious disease. Hepatitis, human immunodeficiency virus, and now the global COVID-19 pandemic involving the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, have forced us into rethinking our current practices. This review article will contextualize previous epidemics and their influence on infection control in dental settings, and it will explore the rapid evolution of current modifications to personal protective equipment and infection mitigation practices specific to sedation and anesthesia in dentistry.

What factors are associated with dental general anaesthetics for Australian children and what are the policy implications? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Dental general anaesthetics undertaken on young children are amongst the most common of all potentially preventable hospitalisations of children in Australia. They are costly for families and the community and entail some risk. The aim of the study was to explore the views of stakeholders about factors associated with children's dental general anaesthetics in Victoria, Australia and to identify policy implications. METHODS: Interviews with stakeholders were used to develop a framework of factors. Interview data were subject to qualitative analysis, informed by Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. RESULTS: Eight themes that encompassed 30 main factors were identified through focused discussions with 16 stakeholders. While the safety of dental general anaesthetics has improved and mortality rates are low, side effects are common. Push factors for children's dental general anaesthetics include a perceived greater 'child-focus'; preferred models of care; low oral health literacy; parent guilt; convenience; and some dentists reluctance to treat high needs children in the clinic. Factors that may decrease the prevalence of dental general anaesthetics include: prevention of dental caries; using alternative approaches; an appropriate workforce mix; enhancing oral health literacy; and development of guidelines. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of hospitalisation of children to treat dental caries is increasing. Many factors influence the prevalence of paediatric dental general anaesthetics - relating to the child, parent, oral health professional, financial impact, health risk, and accessibility to facilities. There are quality of care and convenience benefits but also high costs and possible health risks. Family, workforce and health system factors have been identified that could decrease the prevalence of paediatric dental general anaesthetics.

Is Maximal Dosage for Local Anesthetics Taught Consistently Across U.S. Dental Schools? A National Survey.

Administration of safe and effective local anesthesia is a cornerstone of dental practice, but there is some discrepancy in recommendations for maximum doses, with the Council on Dental Therapeutics and American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry's guidelines differing from the guidelines of manufacturers and contemporary textbooks. The aim of this study was to determine the level of uniformity across U.S. dental schools in teaching maximal safe doses for commonly used local anesthetics. Faculty members primarily responsible for teaching local anesthesia to dental students at all 62 U.S. dental schools that had graduated classes were invited to participate in a survey in March 2017. The survey included questions about maximum doses taught, awareness of the existence of two differing guidelines, and whether one or both guidelines were commonly taught to students. A total of 37 responses were received, for a response rate of 60%. The respondents included oral and maxillofacial surgeons, general dentists, dental anesthesiologists, and periodontists. Of the respondents, 22% reported being unaware of the existence of more than one standard, and there was inconsistency in teaching practices. A majority (73%) reported teaching the higher maximum dose (7 mg/kg) for lidocaine, while a similar but smaller majority (60%) reported teaching the lower dose threshold (4.4 mg/kg) for mepivacaine. This study found no standard recommended maximum dose of lidocaine or mepivacaine being taught in U.S dental schools. Students should be made aware that there is more than one standard, and teaching should emphasize sound medical and pharmacologic principles. There is also a need to ensure that questions on dental licensing examinations are consistent regarding maximum safe doses for local anesthesia.

Oral Surgery Patient Safety Concepts in Anesthesia.

An effective office emergency preparedness plan for the oral and maxillofacial surgery office can be developed through the use of well-designed checklists, cognitive aids, and regularly scheduled in situ simulations with debriefings. In order to achieve this goal, the hierarchal culture of medicine and dentistry must be overcome, and an inclusive team concept embraced by all members of the staff. Technologic advancements in office automation now make it possible to create interactive cognitive aids. These enhance office emergency training and provide a means for more rapid retrieval of essential information and guidance during both simulations and a real crisis.

The American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons Simulation Program.

Patient safety in dental anesthesia has been called into question in recent years. Simulation training has been proposed and developed as one possibility for increasing preparedness and training in cases of adverse events in dental anesthesia. This article presents an overview of the challenges of patient safety in dental anesthesia and how to address them with simulation training. The American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons simulation program is unique in its potential to become a standardized, validated competency course with objective grading criteria, mastery-based cooperative learning model, and low facilitator-to-participant ratio, leading to a practical delivery cost structure.

Monitoring and Management of Pediatric Patients Before, During, and After Sedation for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures: Update 2016.

The safe sedation of children for procedures requires a systematic approach that includes the following: no administration of sedating medication without the safety net of medical/dental supervision, careful presedation evaluation for underlying medical or surgical conditions that would place the child at increased risk from sedating medications, appropriate fasting for elective procedures and a balance between the depth of sedation and risk for those who are unable to fast because of the urgent nature of the procedure, a focused airway examination for large (kissing) tonsils or anatomic airway abnormalities that might increase thepotential for airway obstruction, a clear understanding of the medication's pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects and drug interactions, appropriate training and skills in airway management to allow rescue of the patient, age- and size-appropriate equipment for airway management and venous access, appropriate medications and reversal agents, sufficient numbers of staff to both carry out the procedure and monitor the patient, appropriate physiologic monitoring during and after the procedure, a properly equipped and staffed recovery area, recovery to the presedation level of consciousness before discharge from medical/dental supervision, and appropriate discharge instructions. This report was developed through a collaborative effort of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry to offer pediatric providers updated information and guidance in delivering safe sedation to children.

Optimal and safe standard doses of midazolam and propofol to achieve patient and doctor satisfaction with dental treatment: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The incidences of morbidity and mortality caused by pharmacosedation for dental treatment have not yet reached zero. Adverse events are related to inappropriate respiratory management, mostly originating from an overdose of sedatives. Since sedation is utilized for the satisfaction of both the dentist and the patient, the optimal dose should be minimized to prevent adverse events. We attempted to define the optimal doses of midazolam and propofol required to achieve high levels of patient and dentist satisfaction. METHODS: One thousand dental patients, including those undergoing third molar extractions, were enrolled in this study. A dose of 1 mg of midazolam was administered at 1-minute intervals until adequate sedation was achieved. Propofol was then infused continuously to maintain the sedation level. Both the patients and the dentists were subsequently interviewed and asked to complete a questionnaire. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to examine the factors that contributed to patient and dentist satisfaction. RESULTS: The peak midazolam dose resulting in the highest percentage of patient satisfaction was 3 mg. Both a lower dose and a higher dose reduced patient satisfaction. Patient satisfaction increased with an increasing dosage of propofol up until 4 mg/kg/hr, reaching a peak of 78.6%. The peak midazolam dose resulting in the highest percentage of dentist satisfaction (78.8%) was 2 mg. Incremental propofol doses reduced dentist satisfaction, in contrast to their effect on patient satisfaction. The strongest independent predictors of patient satisfaction and dentist satisfaction were no intraoperative memory (OR, 5.073; 95% CI, 3.532-7.287; P<0.001) and unintentional movements by the patient (OR, 0.035; 95% CI, 0.012-0.104; P<0.001), respectively. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: We found that 3 mg of midazolam and 3 mg/kg/hr of propofol may be the optimal doses for maximizing both patient and dentist satisfaction. Although this level of sedation is relatively light, memory loss and an absence of unintentional patient movements can be expected without adverse events.