Use of Unsafe Teething Remedies: A Survey.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of the Canadian Dental Association Pub Date : 2022-08-01
Farah Abdulsatar, Michael R Miller, Sepideh Taheri
{"title":"Use of Unsafe Teething Remedies: A Survey.","authors":"Farah Abdulsatar,&nbsp;Michael R Miller,&nbsp;Sepideh Taheri","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Various teething remedies have been widely marketed to caregivers. Unsafe remedies, including teething necklaces and topical anesthetics, have been implicated in adverse events, such as suffocation injuries and death. However, little is known about the extent of their use. Our primary objective was to assess the prevalence of teething remedy use among caregivers. A secondary objective was to determine whether the use of unsafe teething remedies is related to socioeconomic status (SES) or maternal education.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Children aged 12-18 months visiting primary care providers for routine checkups were included. Children outside that age group and those with chronic medical conditions were excluded. Caregivers completed a questionnaire about their children's teething symptoms and remedies used to relieve them. Unsafe remedies were defined on the basis of American Academy of Pediatrics and Canadian Paediatric Society recommendations and included topical anesthetics, teething necklaces and liquid-filled teething rings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 130 questionnaires, 123 were complete and included in statistical analysis: 98% of families used teething remedies and 67% were unsafe. Of these families, 27% used amber teething necklaces; 28% used more than 1 unsafe remedy. Apart from topical anesthetic use, no significant correlations were found between overall unsafe remedy use and SES or maternal education.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Unsafe teething remedies are commonly used despite recommendations against them. Use of unsafe teething remedies transcends SES and education level.</p>","PeriodicalId":50005,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Canadian Dental Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Canadian Dental Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Various teething remedies have been widely marketed to caregivers. Unsafe remedies, including teething necklaces and topical anesthetics, have been implicated in adverse events, such as suffocation injuries and death. However, little is known about the extent of their use. Our primary objective was to assess the prevalence of teething remedy use among caregivers. A secondary objective was to determine whether the use of unsafe teething remedies is related to socioeconomic status (SES) or maternal education.

Methods: Children aged 12-18 months visiting primary care providers for routine checkups were included. Children outside that age group and those with chronic medical conditions were excluded. Caregivers completed a questionnaire about their children's teething symptoms and remedies used to relieve them. Unsafe remedies were defined on the basis of American Academy of Pediatrics and Canadian Paediatric Society recommendations and included topical anesthetics, teething necklaces and liquid-filled teething rings.

Results: Of the 130 questionnaires, 123 were complete and included in statistical analysis: 98% of families used teething remedies and 67% were unsafe. Of these families, 27% used amber teething necklaces; 28% used more than 1 unsafe remedy. Apart from topical anesthetic use, no significant correlations were found between overall unsafe remedy use and SES or maternal education.

Conclusion: Unsafe teething remedies are commonly used despite recommendations against them. Use of unsafe teething remedies transcends SES and education level.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用不安全的出牙疗法:一项调查。
目的:各种出牙的补救措施已广泛销售给护理人员。不安全的补救措施,包括出牙项链和局部麻醉剂,与窒息伤害和死亡等不良事件有关。然而,人们对它们的使用程度知之甚少。我们的主要目的是评估护理人员中出牙药物使用的流行程度。第二个目标是确定使用不安全的出牙疗法是否与社会经济地位(SES)或母亲教育有关。方法:对12-18个月的儿童进行常规检查。该年龄组以外的儿童和患有慢性疾病的儿童被排除在外。照顾者完成了一份关于孩子出牙症状和缓解这些症状的调查问卷。不安全的补救措施是根据美国儿科学会和加拿大儿科学会的建议定义的,包括局部麻醉剂、出牙项链和充液出牙环。结果:130份问卷中,有123份完成并纳入统计分析:98%的家庭使用了出牙药物,67%的家庭不安全。在这些家庭中,27%的人使用琥珀项链;28%的人使用了一种以上的不安全药物。除了表面麻醉剂的使用外,总体不安全药物的使用与社会经济地位或母亲教育程度之间没有显著的相关性。结论:不安全的出牙治疗方法经常被使用,尽管建议反对它们。使用不安全的出牙疗法超越了社会经济地位和教育水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the Canadian Dental Association
Journal of the Canadian Dental Association 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: JCDA.ca (Journal of the Canadian Dental Association) is the flagship scholarly, peer-reviewed publication of CDA, providing dialogue between the national association and the dental community. It is dedicated to publishing worthy scientific and clinical articles and informing dentists of issues significant to the profession. CDA has focused its recent efforts on knowledge, advocacy and practice support initiatives and JCDA.ca is an essential part of CDA''s knowledge strategy.
期刊最新文献
Osteomyelitis of the Jaw: A 10-Year Retrospective Analysis at a Tertiary Health Care Centre in Canada. Infective Endocarditis: Etiology, Epidemiology and Current Recommendations for the Dental Practitioner. Long-Term Trends in Access to Dental Care in Canada. Persistent Toothache Despite Multiple Dental-related Treatments: How Could this Be? Impact of Delayed Dental Treatment during the COVID-19 Pandemic in an Undergraduate Dental Clinic in Southwestern Ontario, Canada - A Retrospective Chart Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1