The Journal of the American Dental Association
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 135, No 9, 1287-1291.
© 2004 American Dental Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by TIWANA, K. K.
Right arrow Articles by TIWANA, P. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by TIWANA, K. K.
Right arrow Articles by TIWANA, P. S.
Related Collections
Right arrow Infection Control

CLINICAL PRACTICE

Aspiration and ingestion in dental practice

A 10-year institutional review



KAREN K. TIWANA, B.Sc., D.D.S., TERESA MORTON, B.S.N., M.P.H. and PAUL S. TIWANA, D.D.S., M.D.

Background. This article is an institutional retrospective review of incidents involving aspiration and ingestion of dental foreign objects at a large multidisciplinary dental educational facility. It was undertaken to determine which dental procedures were more likely to involve aspiration or ingestion, as well as to evaluate the outcome of these adverse incidents.

Methods. The inclusion criteria involved all patients who were documented to have experienced loss of dental instruments or material behind the posterior pharynx during a 10-year consecutive period. The dental and medical records of these patients were analyzed, and the outcomes of the adverse events fell into three categories: aspiration, ingestion, or neither aspirated nor ingested. The authors also noted the type of dental instrument and the specialty or area of dentistry in which this event occurred.

Results. There were 36 documented cases. Twenty-five of these were instances of ingestion and one was an aspiration. In 10 cases, aspiration and ingestion were ruled out through radiographic examination or the object was retrieved from the patient’s mouth.

Conclusions. Fixed prosthodontic therapy had the highest number of incidents of adverse outcomes. Ingestion was a more prevalent outcome than aspiration. Dental procedures involving single-tooth cast or prefabricated restorations involving cementation have a higher likelihood of aspiration.

Clinical Implications. The implications for clinical practice include the recognition of risk that dental therapy demands in regard to the airway and posterior pharynx, documentation and follow-up of adverse outcomes, and the use of preventive measures such as rubber dams or gauze throat screens or floss ligatures.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright©1995-2004 American Dental Association (ADA).
Reproduction or republication strictly prohibited without prior written permission of ADA.