Retrospective review of voluntary reports of nonsurgical paresthesia in dentistry.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Paresthesia is an adverse event that may be associated with the administration of local anesthetics in dentistry. The purpose of this retrospective study was to analyze cases of paresthesia associated with local anesthetic injection that were voluntarily reported to Ontario"s Professional Liability Program (PLP) from 1999 to 2008 inclusive, to see if the findings were consistent with those from 1973 to 1998 from this same source. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All cases of nonsurgical paresthesia reported from 1999 to 2008 were reviewed; cases involving surgical procedures were excluded. Variables examined included patient age and gender, type and volume of local anesthetic, anatomic site of nerve injury, affected side and pain on injection or any other symptoms. RESULTS: During the study period, 182 PLP reports of paresthesia following nonsurgical procedures were made; all but 2 were associated with mandibular block injection. There was no significant gender predilection, but the lingual nerve was affected more than twice as frequently as the inferior alveolar nerve. During 2006-2008 alone, 64 cases of nonsurgical paresthesia were reported to PLP, a reported incidence of 1 in 609,000 injections. For the 2 local anesthetic drugs available in dental cartridges as 4% solutions, i.e., articaine and prilocaine, the frequencies of reporting of paresthesia were significantly greater than expected (chi2, exact binomial distribution; p < 0.01) based on their level of use by Ontario dentists. These data suggest that local anesthetic neurotoxicity may be at least partly involved in the development of postinjection paresthesia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".