The impact of wrong-site surgery on dental undergraduate teaching: a survey of UK dental schools.

INTRODUCTION: Patient safety within dental education is paramount. Wrong-site surgery (WSS) tooth extraction is not uncommon and is a significant never event (NE) in dentistry. This study aimed to explore dental schools' undergraduate experience of NEs, safety interventions implemented and the impact on student experience. METHODS: All 16 UK dental schools were surveyed via email. RESULTS: The response rate was 100%. A modified World Health Organization (WHO) checklist was used within institutions (94%) including pre-operative briefings and recording teeth on whiteboards (81%, respectively). Students were directly supervised performing extractions (63%) utilising a 1:4 staff: student ratio. WSS by students was reported in 69% of schools, with student experience being impacted by an increased patient safety focus. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrated an increased utilisation of an adapted WHO checklist. Modification of practices to ensure patient safety was demonstrated at all schools, irrespective of student WSS occurrences. Institutions experiencing student NEs commonly implemented WHO checklists and recording teeth for extraction on whiteboards. Other strategies included direct staff supervision and pre-operative briefings. CONCLUSION: UK dental schools have increased the emphasis on patient safety by the implementation of national healthcare models, for example WHO checklists and pre-operative briefings. These strategies both aim to improve communication and teamwork. Increased levels of staff supervision foster greater quality of teaching; however, this has resulted in reduced student clinical experience. A proposed minimum standard for undergraduate surgery is suggested to ensure safe and competent dental practitioners of the future.

Minimally invasive vertical versus conventional tooth extraction: An interrupted time series study.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive vertical tooth extraction techniques have evolved in light of the limitations of conventional tooth extraction techniques and flap surgery in preserving the alveolar bone. The authors conducted a study to obtain data on the performance of a vertical extraction system. This included comparing the need for flap surgery using the vertical extraction system versus conventional tooth extraction techniques for the extraction of anterior teeth and premolars not suitable for forceps extraction. METHODS: The authors conducted a prospective observational clinical study of the vertical extraction system versus conventional tooth extraction techniques using an interrupted time series in line with the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term Follow-up collaboration framework for surgical innovation. RESULTS: Overall, 276 of 323 teeth (85.4%) in 240 patients were successfully extracted using the vertical extraction system. Of the 47 failures in the vertical tooth extraction cohort, 18 required flap surgery, resulting in an overall incidence of flap surgery of 5.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2% to 8.7%). During the routine care period, of the 94 anterior teeth and premolars in 78 patients, 21 teeth could not be extracted using conventional techniques and required flap surgery, leading to an incidence of flap surgery of 22% (95% CI, 14% to 32%). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the vertical extraction system may be used with a high success rate for extraction of severely destroyed teeth, and its use may lead to a marked reduction in the need for flap surgery. Randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm the findings. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The use of a vertical extraction system may lower the incidence of flap surgery.

Atraumatic vertical tooth extraction: a proof of principle clinical study of a novel system.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the applicability and limitations of a novel atraumatic extraction system. STUDY DESIGN: Seventy-two patients with severely decayed teeth or root remnants not suitable for forceps extraction were consecutively recruited and had 111 teeth extracted with the use of a novel atraumatic vertical extraction system (Benex). Various patient, tooth, and procedure data were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 92 out of 111 teeth (83%) were successfully extracted. The success rate was higher in single-rooted teeth (89%) and lower in multirooted teeth (43%), with a risk ratio for failure of multirooted versus single-rooted teeth of 5.2 (95% confidence interval 2.5-10.7). The majority of failures were characterized by insufficient retention of the screw and/or root fracture, which mainly occurred as a result of caries in the root canal, misplacement/misalignment of the screw by the surgeon, or a fracture of the root in response to drilling and/or moderate input of traction force. CONCLUSIONS: The Benex extractor system may be successfully used for atraumatic tooth extraction. The system has a higher success rate with single-rooted teeth compared with multirooted teeth. Extraction failure is mostly associated with insufficient retention or misplacement of the screw and root fracture.