Literature DB >> 17959962

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

Enrico Monaca1, Norbert Fock, Manfred Doehn, Frank Wappler.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17959962     DOI: 10.1213/01.ane.0000281909.65963.c8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesth Analg        ISSN: 0003-2999            Impact factor:   5.108


  7 in total

1.  [Intubation-linked dental injuries. Relevance of individually adaptable tooth protection models].

Authors:  E Monaca; N Fock; M Doehn; M Winterhalter; F Wappler
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 1.041

2.  Protective dental splint for oroendotracheal intubation: experience of 202 cases.

Authors:  Kang-Hee Lee; Tae-Min You; Wonse Park; Sun Hwa Lee; Bock-Young Jung; Nan-Sim Pang; Kee-Deog Kim
Journal:  J Dent Anesth Pain Med       Date:  2015-03-31

3.  Displacement of deciduous tooth into hypopharynx due to endotracheal intubation.

Authors:  Sang-Hoon Kang; Jung Hyun Chang
Journal:  J Dent Anesth Pain Med       Date:  2016-03-31

4.  Creating protective appliances for preventing dental injury during endotracheal intubation using intraoral scanning and 3D printing: a technical note.

Authors:  Jin-Hyung Cho; Wonse Park; Kyeong-Mee Park; Seo-Yul Kim; Kee-Deog Kim
Journal:  J Dent Anesth Pain Med       Date:  2017-03-27

5.  Prevention of tooth and gum damage: novel application of airtraq laryngoscope.

Authors:  Mahdi Najafi
Journal:  J Tehran Heart Cent       Date:  2011-11-30

6.  Assessment of the Risk Factors for Oro-Dental Injuries to Occur during General Anesthesia and Measures taken by Anesthesiologist to Prevent them.

Authors:  Dattatray Anant Darawade; Alok Dubey; Rajashree Gondhalekar; Swapnil Dahapute; Sonali B Deshmukh; Ashish Dattatray Darawade
Journal:  J Int Oral Health       Date:  2015-07

7.  Mechanical strain to maxillary incisors during direct laryngoscopy.

Authors:  Milo Engoren; Lauryn R Rochlen; Matthew V Diehl; Sarah S Sherman; Elizabeth Jewell; Mary Golinski; Paul Begeman; John M Cavanaugh
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 2.217

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.