A swallowed endodontic file: case report

Ingestion and surgical retrieval of an endodontic file: a case report

Ingestions and aspirations of foreign bodies are rare, but do occasionally occur during dental treatment. Although reports exist, few include photos demonstrating the extensive surgical intervention that may be necessary to manage such events. Perhaps this lack of visualization, and associated lack of awareness, is one of the reasons some clinicians still provide non-surgical root canal therapy (NSRCT) without a rubber dam. This case report outlines the medical treatment of a 30-year-old male who initially presented to a general dentist's office (not associated with the authors) for NSRCT of their mandibular right first molar. A rubber dam was not used for this procedure, during which the accidental ingestion of an endodontic K-file occurred. The patient was subsequently hospitalized for evaluation and treatment, consisting of numerous imaging studies, endoscopic evaluation, and surgical removal of the file from his small intestine. The ingestion of foreign bodies, and the associated complications, can be reduced through the routine use of a rubber dam, which is considered the standard of care for NSRCT. This case graphically illustrates the potential consequences associated with deviating from the standard of care and should remind clinicians that a rubber dam is necessary for all cases of NSRCT.

Aspects of Clinical Malpractice in Endodontics

The clinical dentistry and endodontic procedures involve very technique-sensitive procedures, therefore exposing the operator to risks of causes not only damage to patients but also leads to malpractice. Among various disciplines of dentistry, endodontics-related cases witness the most frequently filed malpractice claims. This is due to the fact that the endodontic treatment procedures involve operative and surgical procedures, using a variety of medicaments and techniques. The endodontic procedural errors can be preoperative errors (such as incorrect diagnosis and misinterpretation), intraoperative errors including root canal and pulp chamber perforations, ledge formation leading to apical transportation or zipping, hypochlorite accidents, and fracture of instruments. More critically, failure to use rubber dam may result in inhalation or ingestion of endodontic instruments. Under such circumstances, the endodontist may have to face legal consequences. Due to the increased healthcare load and patients’ awareness, it is important to know the legal ramifications of adverse effects, failed restorations, or other complications, to avoid any legal ramifications of endodontic procedures and associated techniques. Therefore, precautions must be taken to prevent any postsurgical complications, patient complaints, and/or failures. For this purpose, the operator must consider ethical principles and adhere strictly to the standards of healthcare while performing the diagnosis and treatment. A referral toward a specialist or consultant endodontist is always an appreciable option and should be considered in the best interest of the patient. The aim of the article is to highlight various aspects of malpractice in clinical endodontics, and associated materials and challenges. In addition, commonly occurring operating errors during endodontic treatment, possible consequences, precautions, and management have been discussed.

Dental-Dam for Infection Control and Patient Safety during Clinical Endodontic Treatment: Preferences of Dental Patients

Background: A number of factors (first experience, treating clinician and time to place dental-dam) may influence patients’ preferences regarding dental-dams. In general, patients accept placing it and that it must be used for teeth isolation during endodontic procures for the sake of patient safety and infection control. Objectives: The aim of this study is to investigate preferences and experiences of patients using dental-dam (DD) isolation during root canal treatment (RCT) and to explore influencing factors among the residents of Madinah Munnawara, Saudi Arabia. Methods: Following an ethical approval and a pilot study, a self-administrated questionnaire was distributed to 305 patients attending endodontic clinics at the Taibah University College of Dentistry (TUCOD) over six months. Patients voluntarily participated in the study after understanding the methodologies and signing a consent form. They were asked to fill out a questionnaire on their experiences and preferences in placing the DD during RCT. Data were analyzed using the Chi-square test at p = 0.05. Results: The response rate was 91%. There was no significant correlation between patients’ preferences and their race, age and gender (p > 0.05). The majority of participants (74.3%) would prefer to use a DD in their next session (p < 0.001). This preference negatively correlated with the time required to place a DD and the duration of the current visit (p < 0.001). While most of those who would prefer to use a DD in their next visit were pleased with how it was placed in the current session (76.6%), most of those who would not do so (66.7%) were uncomfortable. Overall, the highest proportion of participants (40.2%) reported that prevention of instrument swallowing was the most important advantage of DD isolation (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Overall, DD isolation for RCT is generally well accepted by patients regardless of their country of origin, gender, education and awareness of its advantages. Patients’ safety was the most attractive advantage for patients to the application of the DD. The time required to place the dental dam and first visit experience in placing the DD affect patients’ future preference.

Rubber dam usage for endodontic treatment: a review

Rubber dam has been available to the dental profession for over 140 years. During this time, the use of rubber dam has been perfected, universally taught and recommended by professional organizations. Unfortunately, its consistent use has been rejected by many in the profession. The literature suggests that rubber dam is not used routinely by dental practitioners for root canal treatment. Many unfounded reasons have been cited for its lack of use, including concerns over patient acceptance, time required for application, cost of equipment and materials, insufficient training, difficulty in use and low treatment fees. Failure to use rubber dam has been shown to influence the choice of root canal irrigant, has a negative impact on treatment outcome and places the patient at risk of swallowing or aspirating materials and instruments. Methods to popularize rubber dam amongst general practitioners are discussed.

Accidental ingestion and aspiration of root canal instruments and other dental foreign bodies in a French population

AIM

To determine the incidence of aspiration and ingestion of endodontic instruments in France during root canal treatment without using rubber dam.

METHODOLOGY

Data was provided by two insurance companies representing 24,651 French general dentists over 11 years. The type and number of accidents per year, the number of dental items involved and the percentage of occurrence of either aspiration or ingestion were reported. The incidence of accidental aspiration or ingestion was calculated. The need for hospitalization to remove the endodontic instruments and other dental items was reported and compared using chi square tests.

RESULTS

One endodontic instrument was aspirated and 57 were ingested. Forty-three other dental items were aspirated and 409 were ingested. For the endodontic instruments: the incidence of aspiration was 0.001 per 100,000 root canal treatments and the incidence of ingestion was 0.12 per 100,000 root canal treatments. The aspirated endodontic instruments and dental items required statistically more frequent hospitalization than the ingested items (P < 0.0001). The endodontic instruments did not require more frequent hospitalization than other dental items when aspirated (ns) and when ingested (ns). No fatal outcome was reported.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of ingestion or aspiration of endodontic instruments was low even thought most general practitioners do not routinely use rubber dam. Use of rubber dam by general practitioners for endodontic procedures should be encouraged by stressing its advantages rather than the fear factor of accidents.