Dentists' perspective and experiences relative to accidental dropping of implant drivers and components intra-orally: a survey of practicing clinicians.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: Ingestion or aspiration of dental implant screwdrivers or implant components is potentially life-threatening. There are no reports on the frequency at which dentists drop these devices within the mouth or which components are most problematic. There are few reports on what protective measures clinicians take, where risks exist, and how this problem is managed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A nine-part questionnaire was provided to dentists. Data collected included Clinicians' roles, implant surgeons, restorative clinicians, or both-frequency of dropping implant screwdrivers or components, items considered most problematic. Patient protection and management were also requested. Finally, questions related to how much of a problem clinicians considered this to be and if further solutions and a standardized management protocol should be developed. RESULTS: One hundred twelve dentists voluntarily completed the survey.54% restored, 37% restored and replaced, and 9% solely placed implants. 29% claimed never to drop components, with 56% dropping an instrument less than 10% of the time. Less than half would suggest patients seek medical advice if a screwdriver or component was accidentally dropped intraorally and was not recovered. 30% never tie floss tethers to screwdrivers, and a similar percentage reported only sometimes. Throat pack protection was reported 51% of the time. 90% considered dropping components an issue, with screwdrivers most problematic. CONCLUSIONS.: Aspiration or ingestion of implant screwdrivers and components is problematic with dentists varying with their use of protection devices. There is a need to standardize and implement patient protection procedures and management and develop methods to reduce the risk of these potentially life-threatening issues.

Survey of Dental Clinicians for Attitude and Use of Torque-Limiting Devices.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to survey practicing clinicians and determine if differences existed concerning their use of torque-limiting devices (TLDs) and screw-tightening protocols, comparing this with existing universal industry standards. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A nine-question survey was administered with 428 dentists providing data for three specific areas: (1) demographic information-TLD ownership, device age, frequency of use, and observations of screw loosening; (2) recognition information-calibration, reading measurements of the TLD, and the meaning of preload; (3) usage information-screw-tightening protocols and effect of speed during actioning of the TLD. Data collection was compared with industry standards for use of hand torque tools including ISO-6789 1,2:2017 and related texts pertaining to screw fastener protocols. RESULTS: The beam-type TLD was the most popular; however, 33% surveyed used it incorrectly. Most TLDs being used were older than 1 year, with only 6% calibrated. Forty-eight percent observed screw loosening less than once per year, while 44% reported three or more occurrences per year. A similar number used the TLD for implant placement and abutment screw tightening. Screw-tightening protocols varied. Preload was not understood by the majority of those surveyed. CONCLUSION: Dentistry does not appear to adhere to the protocols and standards recommended by other industries that also rely on screw-fastening mechanisms and TLDs. Further education and training appears to be warranted in this area of implant dentistry to reduce the risks of screw-associated complications.