Management of Medical Emergencies in the Dental Office: Conditions in Each Country, the Extent of Treatment by the Dentist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
D entists must be prepared to manage medical emer- gencies which may arise in practice.In Japan, a study was conducted between 1980 and 1984 by the Committee for the Prevention of Systematic Complications During Dental Treatment of the Japan Dental Society of Anesthesiology, under the auspices of the Japanese Dental Society. 1 The results from this study showed that anywhere from 19% to 44% of dentists had a patient with a medical emergency in any one year.Most of these complications, approximately 90%, were mild, but 8% were considered to be serious.It was found that 35% of the patients were known to have some underlying disease.Cardiovascular disease was found in 33% of those patients.Medical emergencies were most likely to occur during and after local anesthesia, primarily during tooth extraction and endodontics.Over 60% of the emergencies were syncope, with hyperventilation the next most frequent at 7%.In the United States and Canada, studies have also shown that syncope is the most common medical emergency seen by dentists. 2,3Syncope represented approximately 50% of all emergencies reported in one particular study, with the next most common event, mild allergy, represented only 8% of all emergencies.In addition to syncope, other emergencies reported to have occurred include allergic reactions, angina pectoris/ myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, postural hypotension, seizures, bronchospasm and diabetic emergencies.The extent of treatment by the dentist requires preparation, prevention and then management, as necessary.Prevention is accomplished by conducting a thorough medical history with appropriate alterations to dental treatment as required.The most important as-
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".