No abstract

The prevalence of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices as life-prolonging and life-saving devices has evolved from a treatment of last resort to a first-line therapy for an increasing number of patients. As these devices become more and more popular in the general population, dental providers utilizing instruments and medications should be aware of dental equipment and medications that may affect these devices and understand the management of patients with these devices. This review article will discuss the various types and indications for pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, common drugs and instruments affecting these devices, and management of patients with these devices implanted for cardiac dysrhythmias.

No abstract

Relegated to clinical afterthought, the topic of infection control has never taken center stage in our modern dental sedation and anesthesiology practices. Surgical and procedural masks, gloves, gowns, protective eyewear, and appropriate surgical attire have remained de rigueur in both fashion and custom for decades. However, the emergence of certain seminal events throughout health care history has driven mandated changes when practitioners, staff, patients, and the surrounding communities were exposed or put at risk of exposure to infectious disease. Hepatitis, human immunodeficiency virus, and now the global COVID-19 pandemic involving the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, have forced us into rethinking our current practices. This review article will contextualize previous epidemics and their influence on infection control in dental settings, and it will explore the rapid evolution of current modifications to personal protective equipment and infection mitigation practices specific to sedation and anesthesia in dentistry.

To compare the effectiveness of a combination of 10% lidocaine, 10% prilocaine, and 4% tetracaine versus 20% benzocaine for use as a topical anesthetic agent prior to dental injections. A double-blind randomized prospective clinical trial was conducted with 26 participants receiving a topical anesthetic of 20% benzocaine (control) and 26 participants receiving a compound topical anesthetic mixture of 10% lidocaine, 10% prilocaine, and 4% tetracaine (experimental) prior to a maxillary infiltration injection. The procedure was conducted by 1 operator with the Wand® injection system. Pain was assessed directly with visual analog scale (VAS) scores and indirectly by measuring changes in heart rate at 4 different time points. Complications associated with the application of the topical anesthetics were also assessed. The experimental group had a significantly higher mean VAS score of 19.5 ± 19.7 mm versus 14.2 ± 14.6 mm for the control group (p < .001). No significant differences in heart rate at any of the 4 measured time points compared with baseline were noted for either group. The experimental group had a significantly higher incidence of complications, including tissue sloughing, when compared with the control group (p < .001). Participants in the control group reported significantly lower VAS scores than those in the experimental group. Both types of topical anesthetic showed similar impacts on alterations to heart rate. No benefits were seen with the use of 10% lidocaine, 10% prilocaine, and 4% tetracaine as a topical anesthetic prior to a maxillary infiltration of local anesthetic when compared with 20% benzocaine.