Journal of the Canadian Dental Association最新文献

Traditionally, periodontal hand instruments are honed or sharpened during patient care as they dull easily during contact with enamel, calculus and cementum. This approach is taught in dental and hygiene schools around the world and remains the standard of care. Recently, some professional organizations have questioned whether this practice should be abandoned because of safety issues. Questions have been raised whether sharpening stones can be properly sterilized and whether the sharpening of contaminated instruments poses a health hazard for the provider. Using bacteria culture techniques and scanning electron microscopy, we tested whether contaminated ceramic sharpening stones can be sterilized. Our results demonstrate that the stones were sterile after being subjected to the manufacturer's sterilization protocol. In addition, over the last year, no incidents related to periodontal instrument sharpening have been reported among nearly 400 students at the faculty of dentistry, University of British Columbia, where chair-side sharpening is taught. Therefore, we conclude that ceramic sharpening stones can be sterilized using normal office protocols and that chair-side sharpening adds little risk beyond routine handling of operatory or periodontal instruments during patient care when proper protocols are followed.

Aim: To assess the prescribing decisions of general dentists in Vancouver and endodontists in British Columbia regarding analgesics and antibiotics for patients with endodontic disease. An additional aim was to determine whether gender, clinical experience or practice location have an impact on such decisions.

Methods: A 4-page survey was developed and distributed to approximately half the general dentists in Vancouver (n = 259) and all of the endodontists in British Columbia (n = 50). Basic demographic questions were followed by 7 clinical scenarios and a list of endodontic diagnoses. Participants were asked questions regarding their decisions to prescribe analgesics and antibiotics.

Results: The overall response rate was 49%: 72% of endodontists responded, compared with 45% of general dentists. A substantial proportion of clinicians prescribed opioid analgesics and antibiotics in the various clinical scenarios. The rate of prescription of opioid analgesics ranged from 4%-47% for the various scenarios; the rate of prescription of antibiotics was 5%-88%. General dentists reported prescribing opioid analgesics and antibiotics more often than endodontists. Gender, clinical experience and practice location did not seem to have an impact on the decision to prescribe opioid analgesics or antibiotics.

Conclusions: Based on the results of our survey, a significant proportion of dental professionals in British Columbia prescribe opioid analgesics and antibiotics during endodontic procedures when they are likely not required. General dentists tend to prescribe these medications more often than endodontists. We found no apparent differences in terms of gender, clinical experience or practice location. Dentists must be conscientious when prescribing these medications as over-prescription has negative consequences.

Objectives: This pilot study at the dentistry department of BC Children's Hospital (DD-BCCH) in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, aimed to explore issues of access to dental services for children with special health care needs (CSHCN).

Methods: Caregivers of CSHCN, who were patients of record at DD-BCCH, were recruited to participate in this study. We collected sociodemographic characteristics, insurance coverage and medical diagnosis, and information on caregivers' perceptions of enabling factors and barriers to dental services using a pretested survey instrument with 33 closed and open-ended questions. We also obtained referral source, insurance coverage and medical diagnosis from the child's dental record. We analyzed quantitative data descriptively and qualitative comments from caregivers thematically.

Results: Common medical diagnoses among this sample of CSHCN (n = 50) were: genetic disorder/syndrome, developmental delay, sensory impairments and autism. Half of the children were referred by a medical professional; most (90%) had had a dental appointment within the last year that included preventive treatment. Although most caregivers reported some available dental benefits, affordability of dental services was a concern. Lack of dentist's training or comfort treating CSHCN, because of the complexity of the child's medical condition or behavioural challenges was also a reported barrier.

Conclusions: The complexity of the child's medical status, the limited ability of dentists to provide care and financial obstacles were commonly reported barriers to care. Current efforts may best be focused on encouraging the province's health professionals, including dentists, to facilitate early referral to tertiary-level care for CSHCN whom they consider medically or behaviourally complex beyond their skill or comfort level.

Objective: Recently, there has been great interest in the use, abuse and over-prescribing of opioid analgesics for children. However, there is a paucity of evidence on patterns of prescribing of both narcotic and non-narcotic analgesics for children by dentists.

Methods: We used a population-wide prescription drug database (PharmaNet) in British Columbia, Canada, to examine prescribing and dispensing of analgesics surrounding dental procedures. We examined all drugs prescribed for children by dentists between 1997 and 2013, as we had access to data on drug doses and days of medication supply. We also examined trends in the use of various narcotic and non-narcotic analgesics and benzodiazepines.

Results: In total, 268 691 children were prescribed at least 1 study drug by a dentist. Codeine was the most frequently prescribed: 50% of children received codeine for more than 3 days. Duration of use of codeine was greatest among children ≥12 years, the longest duration of use being 5 days.

Conclusions: Our study reveals that codeine prescription by dentists increased over the 16-year study period. Codeine is prescribed by dentists for 50% of children; prescriptions are for too long a duration to avoid potential morphine accumulation and are not in line with current treatment guidelines.

Objective: This study aims to assess barriers to the use of deep sedation/general anesthesia (DS/GA) identified by dentists in Ontario.

Methods: An email invitation to a web-based survey was distributed to all licensed dentists and specialists who have provided an email address to the provincial regulator (n = 5507). Descriptive and regression analyses were performed to explore practice and demographic factors associated with the use of DS/GA.

Results: The response rate was 18.3%. A quarter (24.8%) of respondents reported inadequate access to DS/GA. Access was poorest in rural communities and greatest in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Overall, 74.5% of dentists indicated that they had used DS/GA in the past 12 months. Use was defined as having provided the service or referred a patient in the past 12 months. Non-use was most likely among general dentists, part-time dentists, dentists > 64 years and dentists in urban locations. Wait times and travel distances were reported as longer for medically complex patients. The most common reasons for non-use of DS/GA were a lack of perceived demand and additional costs to patients. For DS/GA users, the greatest barrier was additional costs to patients.

Conclusion: Access to DS/GA in Ontario is not uniform; it remains a challenge in rural communities and regions outside the GTA, especially in the north. Use is lowest among general dentists and urban dentists despite adequate access, with dentists' perception of need for DS/GA and cost to the patient acting as major barriers. Education for dentists and better insurance coverage for patients may improve access for these patients.

Temporomandibular disorder (TMD) is a collective term that includes disorders of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) and of the masticatory muscles and their associated structures. TMDs are characterized by pain, joint sounds and restricted mandibular movement, and drugs are widely used in the management of that pain. Pharmacological agents commonly used for the treatment of TMDs include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, corticosteroids, muscle relaxants, antidepressants, anticonvulsants and benzodiazepines. In this paper, we discuss these agents and the potential adverse drug reactions and interactions associated with their use. Temporomandibular disorder (TMD) is a collective term used for a number of clinical problems that involve the masticatory muscle complex, the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) and associated structures. TMD is one of the most common disorders in the maxillofacial region. Signs and symptoms of TMD may include pain, impaired jaw function, malocclusion, deviation from the midline on opening or closing the jaw, limited range of motion, joint noises and locking.1 Among other signs and symptoms, headaches and sleep disturbances can appear concomitantly.2 This disorder is most prevalent in people aged 20-40 years.3 Approximately 33% of the population have at least 1 TMD symptom, and 3.6-7.0% of the population have TMD with sufficient severity to seek treatment.3 There is some evidence to suggest that anxiety, stress and other emotional disturbances exacerbate TMD.4 As many as 75% of patients with TMD have a significant psychological abnormality.5 Most TMD symptoms resolve over time, but, for a significant number of patients, this may take a year or more.3 Treatment is directed toward reducing pain and improving function. Many non-invasive therapies, such as self-care, physical therapy and appliance therapy, are commonly used for the treatment of TMD.3 Pharmacological intervention has been used for many years, and the most effective pharmacological agents for the treatment of TMD include analgesics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, corticosteroids, anxiolytics, muscle relaxants, antidepressants, anticonvulsants and benzodiazepines. However, we found only 1 relevant Cochrane study, which included 11 randomized controlled trials of pharmacotherapy for TMD.6 In this article, we review the pharmacology and research supporting the use of a host of pharmacologic agents that have been prescribed for patients who have TMD. The decision to select any of these agents depends on a full understanding of the drug's risks and benefits.

Background: Clinical trials show the efficacy of dentists' counseling in smoking cessation. However, little is known about the effectiveness of such advice in the general population of smokers.

Objective: To examine the association between dentists' advice, use of cessation medications and quitting behaviours in the general population of adult smokers in Ontario, Canada.

Methods: Data were from the Ontario Tobacco Survey panel study, which followed people who were smokers in July 2005 semi-annually for up to 3 years until June 2011. Baseline smokers, who were seen by a dentist during the study, were included in the analysis (n = 2714 with 7549 observations). Logistic regression analysis with generalized estimating equations was used to examine associations among dentists' advice, use of cessation medications and quitting outcomes (quit attempts and short-term quitting ≥ 30 days).

Results: Those who received dentists' advice were more addicted to tobacco, compared with those who did not receive dentists' advice (self-perceived addiction to tobacco: 96% vs. 89%, p < 0.001). Dentists' advice alone was not associated with making an attempt to quit smoking or short-term quitting. However, receiving dentists' advice in conjunction with cessation medications was associated with a higher likelihood of quit attempts (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 9.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.77-12.47) and short-term quitting (adjusted OR 3.19, 95% CI 2.20-4.62), compared with not receiving dentists' advice and not using cessation medications.

Conclusion: Dentists play an important role in smoking cessation, because they can encourage patients to stop smoking and promote success by advising patients to use cessation medications.

Introduction: Children of newcomers to Canada have been identified as at moderately high risk for developing early childhood caries (ECC). The purpose of this study was to investigate the oral health of preschool children of refugee and immigrant families in Winnipeg.

Methods: Children < 72 months of age and their parent or primary caregiver were recruited through several newcomer settlement agencies, dental clinics and community programs. Parents and caregivers completed a short questionnaire with the assistance of a research team member. Children underwent a dental examination. Results of the questionnaire were combined with those of the clinical examination and subjected to statistical analysis.

Results: We recruited 211 children. Their mean age was 40.2 ± 15.4 months, and 54.0% were boys. Overall, 45.5% of the children had ECC and 31.8% had severe ECC (S-ECC). The mean decayed, missing and filled teeth (dmft) score was 2.2 ± 3.8 (range 0-19), while the mean decayed, missing, filled surfaces (dmfs) score was 4.8 ± 11.0 (range 0-63). Infant dental enucleation was observed in 6 children. Logistic regression analyses showed that increasing age, the presence of debris on teeth, parents believing their child has dental problems and the presence of enamel hypoplasia were significantly and independently associated with ECC and S-ECC (p ≤ 0.05).

Conclusions: ECC is prevalent in children of newcomer families in Manitoba. These data will inform advocacy efforts to improve access to dental care and tailor early childhood oral health promotion and ECC prevention activities for refugees and recent immigrants.

Objective: The goal of this project was to report the complications associated with mandibular angle fractures and identify variables affecting their occurrence.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients with a mandibular angle fracture treated at the Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec between 2009 and 2013.

Results: Seventy-eight patients (73 males) aged 15-59 years (mean 25.2 years) met our inclusion criteria. A wisdom tooth was present in 85.9% (n = 67) of the cases and it was removed 62.7% (n = 42) of the time. Thirty-four patients (43.6%) had other mandibular fractures. Most fractures were fixated with a sagittal split osteotomy plate (n = 32; 41.0%) or a 2.0-mm plate on the lateral aspect of the mandible (n = 20; 25.6%). The overall complication rate was 42.3% (n = 33); of these 37.2% were infections, 26.9% involved plate removal and 6.4% were associated with non-union. Older patients had more infections (p = 0.03) and more plates removed (p = 0.03). When a wisdom tooth was extracted, more infections (p = 0.04) and overall complications (p = 0.02) were observed.

Conclusion: This study confirms that, when treating a mandibular angle fracture in a healthy patient, it may be beneficial to leave a wisdom tooth in the line of fracture in place, if there is no indication to remove it.

Objective: To investigate Ontario dentists’ perceptions of patient interest in sedation and general anesthesia (GA) during treatment and patient fear and avoidance of dental treatment.

Methods: Using the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario roster, we randomly selected 3001 practising Ontario dentists, from among those who listed an email address, to complete a 16-question survey by mail or online. Demographic information (e.g., gender, size and type of primary practice, and years of experience) was collected as well as dentist reports of patient interest in sedation/GA and level of fear regarding treatment. Analysis included sample t-tests to compare Ontario dentist responses with patient responses to a 2002 national survey.

Results: 1076 dentists participated (37.9% response rate), comprised of 69.7% males, 84.4% general practitioners, 0.5–42 years of practice (mean 20.6 years), and 40.6% from cities with a population larger than 500,000. Dentists underestimated patients’ interest in sedation/GA, with dentists and patients reporting patients “Not interested” as 66.8% and 43.9%, respectively, and “Interested depending on cost,” 19.8% v. 42.3%. Dentists also underestimated patient interest in sedation/GA for specific dental procedures including scaling, fillings/crowns,root canal therapy and periodontal surgery (p < 0.01). Dentists overestimated patient fear levels (“Somewhat afraid,” 19.9% v. 9.8%; “Very afraid,” 10.6% v. 2.0%; “Terrified,” 6.0% v. 3.5%) and the proportion of patients avoiding dental care (13.3% v. 7.6%).

Conclusion: Dentists underestimate patients’ preference for sedation/GA and overestimate their fear and avoidance of dental care. The significant disparities between the views of dentists and patients may affect the availability and provision of sedation and general anesthesia in Ontario dental practices.