PubMed · 8779660
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M Gardner. 1996. Do we need another specialty?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8779660/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVES: To compare the ability of re-usable and partly disposable dental cartridge syringes to aspirate in vitro. METHODS: A laboratory investigation comparing two re-usable (Astra and Rotor) and one partly disposable (Ultra Safety-plus) dental cartridge syringes. Forces needed to move the cartridge plunger and forces required to produce aspiration of Bonney's Blue dye were measured using an Instron testing machine. RESULTS: There were significant differences in the forces needed to produce aspiration in the different systems (F = 194, p<0.001). The Astra system needed the least force to produce aspiration. The forces required to aspirate in the Rotor and Ultra Safety-plus systems did not differ. Each system aspirated effectively in vitro at the initial aspiration manoeuvre. The forces available for subsequent aspiration attempts varied with the speed of cartridge plunger movement. The volume of local anaesthetic cartridge used did not affect the force needed to produce aspiration in the Ultra Safety-plus syringe. The method of testing free-flow of solution through the needle affected the force generated at subsequent plunger movements. CONCLUSIONS: The re-usable and partly disposable syringes investigated aspirated effectively at the initial aspiration manoeuvre. The force available to produce aspiration at subsequent attempts varies with the speed of injection. The method of testing free-flow of solution through the needle in a loaded syringe affects the force available at the first aspiration manoeuvre.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the views of consultants in restorative dentistry on sedation services in secondary care for restorative dentistry and their involvement in the provision of this. DESIGN: Postal questionnaire survey in the UK. SETTING: Consultants in restorative dentistry. RESULTS: There was an 80% response rate from 179 consultants. Among consultants in restorative dentistry there was a perceived need for sedation services in restorative dentistry within NHS hospitals other than for teaching purposes. Anxiety and level of trauma of dental treatment affected whether consultants felt it appropriate for patients to have such treatment under sedation. One third (48) of consultants treated patients under conscious sedation, a significant number of these held NHS posts and had graduated more recently. Of those (41) who provided treatment under conscious sedation in an NHS setting, most (38, 93%) provided treatment under intravenous sedation of whom only eight (21%) acted as operator/sedationist. Nearly all consultants (135, 94%) felt that specialist registrars in restorative dentistry should undergo some form of training in sedation. CONCLUSIONS: Although consultants in restorative dentistry recognise the need for training in and the provision of sedation in secondary care for restorative dentistry, only one third of respondents currently provide this service.