Safe orthodontic bonding for children with disabilities during general anaesthesia. (1/19)

General anaesthesia (GA) may be employed to overcome management difficulties in the orthodontic treatment of disabled children. This report introduces the application of a rubber dam as a useful aid for a high quality bonding and as an effective safeguard in bonding of brackets in general anaesthesia, in the handicapped in particular. GA was used in 12 patients, of a cohort of 49 disabled patients, to facilitate the placing of the fixed appliance. The first seven were bonded solely with the use of an oropharyngeal pack and a high velocity suction to prevent aspiration, and the last five additionally underwent placement of a rubber dam. The use of a rubber dam to facilitate the safe and reliable bonding of orthodontic brackets in handicapped children under general anaesthesia is highly recommended.  (+info)

The use of specific dental school-taught restorative techniques by practicing clinicians. (2/19)

In 1995, a survey requesting information about the utilization of certain prosthodontic techniques was mailed to 3,544 graduates of a midwestern dental school. Responses were received from 1,455 alumni, representing a 41 percent return rate. In general, the results are consistent with international and national trends and show significant disparity in the utilization rates of certain procedures between general dentists and prosthodontists, as well as a disconnect between what is taught in the undergraduate dental educational program and what is applied in practice. For example, while prosthodontists typically apply what was taught in their educational program, utilization rates of general dentists for the facebow was 29.64 percent; the custom tray 68.48 percent; border molding 58.67 percent; altered casts 24.10 percent; custom posts 49.29 percent; prefabricated posts 67.54 percent; and semi-adjustable articulators 50.64 percent. While no solutions to this disconnect are offered the authors do pose important questions that must be addressed by the dental educational community.  (+info)

Should a mucoadhesive patch (DentiPatch) be used for gingival anesthesia in children? (3/19)

A local anesthetic-impregnated mucosal adhesive patch (DentiPatch) was compared with topical anesthetic (Hurricaine Dry Handle Swab) for gingival anesthesia before rubber dam clamp placement in children. Twenty-eight children needing sealants on their posterior teeth were enrolled in this study. Topical anesthesia was provided using either the mucoadhesive patch (20% lidocaine) or topical anesthetic (20% benzocaine). Subjects were randomized using a split mouth model. Either the patch or topical anesthetic was applied to the gingiva for 5 minutes or 1 minute, respectively. Subjects used a visual analog scale to describe their pain during the procedure. Linear regression and mixed linear models were used for data analysis. The visual analog scale results (pain scores) showed no significant difference between treatments. The mean per-child patch-sticking fraction was 29.7%. Patch adherence to oral mucosa increased with age in girls (P = .0045), but not in boys. The DentiPatch is as effective as, although not superior to, the Hurricaine Dry Handle Swab for gingival anesthesia before rubber dam clamp placement in children. These study results would not support the use of the DentiPatch for gingival anesthesia in children because of poor adherence to oral mucosa and the extra time necessary to apply and retain the device.  (+info)

Compliance with infection control programs in private dental clinics in Jordan. (4/19)

The aim of this study was to assess the compliance of general dental practitioners (GDPs) in the private sector in North Jordan with infection control measures. A pilot-tested questionnaire about infection control measures was distributed in March 2004 to 120 private practices. The response rate was 91.66 percent. About 77 percent of dentists usually ask their patients about medical history, 36 percent were vaccinated against hepatitis B, 81.8 percent wear and change gloves during treatment and between patients, and 54.5 percent wear and change masks during treatment and between patients. Most dental practitioners (95.4 percent) reported that they changed extraction instruments and burs between patients. All dental practitioners reported that they changed saliva ejectors between patients, but only 41.8 percent changed handpieces between patients. Approximately 63 percent (69/110) used autoclaves for sterilization, 47.3 percent (52/110) used plastic bags to wrap sterilized instruments, and only 18 percent (20/110) disinfected impressions before sending them to dental labs. Fourteen percent used rubber dams in their clinics, and only 31.8 percent had special containers for sharps disposal. Based on these responses, approximately 14 percent of general dentists in this sample were considered to be compliant with an inventory of recommended infection control measures. In Jordan, there is a great need to provide formal and obligatory infection control courses and guidelines for private dentists by the Ministry of Health and the dental association in addition to distribution of standard infection control manuals that incorporate current infection control recommendations.  (+info)

Do condoms cause rape and mayhem? The long-term effects of condoms in New South Wales' prisons. (5/19)

BACKGROUND: Concerns raised by opponents to condom provision in prisons have not been objectively examined and the issue continues to be debated. The long-term effects of the introduction of condoms and dental dams into New South Wales (NSW) prisons in 1996 was examined, focusing on particular concerns raised by politicians, prison officers, prison nurses and prisoners. These groups were worried that (a) condoms would encourage prisoners to have sex, (b) condoms would lead to an increase in sexual assaults in prisons, (c) prisoners would use condoms to hide and store drugs and other contraband and (d) prisoners would use condoms as weapons. METHOD: Data sources included the NSW Inmate Health Survey (IHS) from 1996 and 2001 and official reports from the NSW Department of Corrective Services. The 1996 IHS involved 657 men and 132 women randomly selected from all prisons, with a 90% response rate. The 2001 survey involved 747 men and 167 women inmates, with an 85% response rate. RESULTS: There was a decrease in reports of both consensual male-to-male sex and male sexual assaults 5 years after the introduction of condoms into prisons in 1996. The contents of condom kits were often used for concealing contraband items and for other purposes, but this was not associated with an increase in drug injecting in prison. Only three incidents of a condom being used in assaults on prison officers were recorded between 1996 and 2005; none was serious. CONCLUSIONS: There exists no evidence of serious adverse consequences of distributing condoms and dental dams to prisoners in NSW. Condoms are an important public health measure in the fight against HIV and sexually transmitted diseases; they should be made freely available to prisoners as they are to other high-risk groups in the community.  (+info)

Sedative effect of oral diazepam and chloral hydrate in the dental treatment of children. (6/19)

PURPOSE: The purpose was to evaluate two sedation protocols during dental sessions in anxious children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: It was a randomized and double-blind study, with each individual being his/her own control within each protocol. Furthermore, the two protocols were compared. Twenty children (36 to 84 months old) who exhibited "definitely negative" behavior according to the Frankl scale were assigned to receive oral chloral hydrate (40 mg/kg) (Group I) or Diazepam (5 mg) (Group II). Behavior during local anesthesia, application of rubber dam, cavity preparation, restorative procedures was evaluated, considering the degree of sleep, body movement, crying and overall behavior. Vital signs were assessed at three different times. The Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney, Exact Fisher's and Spearman correlation tests were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Group I presented higher scores for sleep during the CH session than placebo session during rubber dam application (P = 0.0431) and restoration (P = 0.0431). In Group II there was no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between sessions and groups in the evaluation of body movement, crying and vital signs. Overall behavior in the placebo session was better than in the CH session during local anesthesia, but there was no difference between the two drug regimens. There was influence of age during anesthesia and cavity preparation in Group I and during rubber dam application in Group II. It was concluded that oral diazepam and chloral hydrate had no influence on the behavior management for dental treatment with the studied sample.  (+info)

Study of root canal accessibility in human primary molars. (7/19)

The aim of the present study was to provide a general scheme for pulpectomy of primary molars that may be useful for decision-making about negotiation of root canals and selection of appropriate instruments. A total of 160 vital primary molars in 85 patients (40 males, 45 females) aged 4-6 years were selected. After taking primary radiographs, local anesthesia was induced, and the teeth were isolated using a rubber dam. Canal accessibility index (CAI) and tooth accessibility index (TAI) were calculated according to initial file size. Mandibular first molars had either three canals (79.2%) or four canals (20.8%), and all second molars had four canals. Maxillary first molars had three canals and second molars had either three canals (70.9%) or four canals (29.1%). Lower accessibility of the mandibular first molar distobuccal root accounted for the lower accessibility of these teeth in comparison with mandibular second molars. While three-canal maxillary second molars were more accessible due to the lower accessibility of the distobuccal canal of the maxillary first molar, poor accessibility of the distal canal in four-canal second molars was responsible for the difficult accessibility of these teeth. In conclusion, it seems that the accessibility of a single canal in each tooth determines the difficulty of accessibility for any given tooth. Moreover, while primary second molars are more accessible than first molars, all of them are negotiable.  (+info)

Do dental educators need to improve their approach to teaching rubber dam use? (8/19)

Most dentists are educated in rubber dam use in dental school, but there is often disparity between what is taught for various restorative procedures and what is practiced in the private sector. It is a common, although undocumented, belief that few practicing dentists routinely use rubber dam isolation. This study repeated a survey conducted in 1985 evaluating U.S. general dentists' attitudes toward rubber dam usage to see if improvement is needed in current dental educators' approach to this topic. Four hundred dentists were selected randomly from ten major geographically diverse cities using the website YellowPages.com. Each was mailed a letter requesting survey participation, which included a pre-stamped, pre-addressed postcard with the survey printed on the back. The target population, general dentists, returned 164 surveys (41 percent). Their responses can be summarized as follows: 71 percent do amalgams-of those, 53 percent never use a rubber dam whereas 12 percent always use a rubber dam; 100 percent do anterior direct resin composites-of those, 45 percent never use a rubber dam whereas 17 percent always use a rubber dam; 98 percent do posterior direct resin composites-of those, 39 percent never use a rubber dam and 18 percent always use a rubber dam; and 78 percent do endodontic procedures-of those, 11 percent never use a rubber dam whereas 58 percent always use a rubber dam. Most (74 percent) felt that their dental school rubber dam training was adequate; 42 percent felt that its use has an effect on the quality of restorative dentistry. Their most common reasons for not using a dam were the following: inconvenience (40 percent); unnecessary (28 percent); other (12 percent); patient refusal (11 percent); and time (9 percent). No respondent indicated that "cost" was a reason for not using rubber dams. This study indicates that many general dentists in this country continue to ignore the rubber dam for many restorative and some endodontic procedures. It indicates that predoctoral dental educators need to look for opportunities for improvement to reduce the discrepancy between what is taught and the general practice of dentistry.  (+info)