Local Anesthesia by Dental Hygienists - Essay Example

Utilization of Local Anesthesia by Connecticut and Washington Dental Hygienists, and Dentists' Satisfaction Relative to this Function Introduction The administration of local anesthesia by dental hygienists was historically implemented in 1971, with Washington being the first state that was given approval for this procedure (Anderson, 2002). To date, more than half of the states around the United States allow the use of local anesthesia during dental cleaning services (Scofiels et al., 2005). Implemental of local anesthesia requires a number of competencies in a dental hygienist, including the attendance of a didactic course of the utilization of this reagent. In addition, a clinical course on the applications of anesthesia and its effects on the human body are necessary for licensure. In states wherein the application of local anesthesia is allowed, the dental hygienist is initially authorized by the dentist of the dental clinic to administer the reagent to the client (DeAngelis and Goral, 2000). The application of local anesthesia has been delegated to dental hygienists because this procedure is not frequently employed, with exception to a few particular dental scenarios (Wilkins, 1994). However, majority of the cases wherein local anesthesia was administered to the client indicated satisfaction in the dental services that they received. It is thus apparent that the administration of local anesthesia to clients of a dental clinic experiences significantly less pain than those who were not given any local anesthesia. It has been reported that local anesthesia is usually administered during periodontal practice, with approximately 10% of clients needing this reagent. The utilization of local anesthesia presents a number of discrepancies in terms of its frequency and reasons for use. Firstly, it has been reported that the administration of local anesthesia by dental hygienists are more often performed based on the request of the client, as compared to the frequency of request by the attending dentist. It is thus possible that some of these cases could have been conducted without the need for a local block. Secondly, the frequency of use of local anesthesia by dental hygienists varied among states, thus there may be additional reasons that could influence the options of the client, dental hygienist and dentist. The application of local anesthesia has also been associated with a number of side effects, including that of a toxic reaction to the reagent (Brand et al., 2009). Other associated reactions may be linked to the loss of sensitivity of the mouth area, thus resulting in a change in the quality of service of the client soon after a dental procedure has been performed. Given such discrepancies with regards to the utilization of local anesthesia by dental hygienists, this study would thus want to address the issue of local anesthesia administration in two specific states, namely Connecticut and Washington. It should be understood that Washington carries a longer history of implementation of local anesthesia, as compared to Connecticut. It would thus be important and informative to determine whether there are any differences in the frequency of use of local anesthesia in these two states. In addition, the satisfaction of both dentists and dental hygienists from the use of local anesthesia would be examined in this study. Any information that would be gathered from this investigation may provide a better understanding of the reasons and factors that influence the administration of local anesthesia to dental clients. This study will be performed by collecting the perceptions of dentists and dental hygienists on the issue of the administration of local anesthesia. A battery of questions that are related to the use of local anesthesia during dental services will be presented in questionnaires that will be given to study participants. One limitation of this investigation is that the study population may be fully represent the entire country, yet the particular features of each state would provide ample information on the determinants and effectiveness of local anesthesia administration. Literature review The application of local anesthesia during dental services is regarded as the most common methods of pain control (Overman, 2007). The main dental health professional that is often associated with the administration of local anesthesia is the dental hygienist. This dental health professional is a trained personnel that has received education from at least 1 to 3 years, depending on the country of practice. Dental hygienists are often situated within dental clinics and work together with dentists, yet their financial connections are often independent (Gruythuysen and Vertin, 1994). This concept is presented in this literature review because it is important to understand how dental hygienists operate in the clinical setting. The option of administering local anesthesia to a client generally involves the sensation of pain in the part of the client. Any one of two parties may be considered as the requesting party for the administration of local anesthesia. The most common requestor is the client, wherein this individual feels discomfort or pain during a particular procedure. The other usual requestor is the dentist, who is very familiar with each dental procedure that is being performed in the dental clinic. Once the request for the administration of local anesthesia is expressed, the dentist then approves the request and informs the dental hygienist of the impending procedure. Despite the effectiveness of the use of local anesthesia in controlling pain experienced by dental clients, there are yet major discrepancies associated with this procedure. It has been reported that there is a significant number of dental clients that do not request for the administration of local anesthesia during routine dental cleaning. There are also reports that describe that certain dental hygienists are associated with higher frequencies in local anesthesia usage. It may thus be possible that the quality of dental cleaning may influence the occurrence of pain or discomfort in the client. It has been established that most clients of dental clinics experience anxiety before and during dental visits (De Jongh and Stouthard, 1993). This mental health condition may possibly influenced their sensitivity to pain during a dental procedure such as routine cleaning. The anxiety of clients may also affect the satisfaction of a dental hygienist during a particular procedure. It may thus be possible that a dental hygienist would prefer to administer local anesthesia to his client in order to assure himself of a satisfying relationship with his client. It has been established that there is a relationship between the administration of local anesthesia and the type of dental procedure. Periodontal procedures are strongly associated with pain and pressure of manipulation of teeth and jaw bones and that it is common for clients to request local anesthesia to alleviate their pain during the procedure. Reports indicate that patients who undergo routine cleaning usually do not request for any local anesthesia. The first indication for the need to employ such pain control reagent is during deep sealing and manipulation. Another report has indicated that the pain experienced by a client may be of any of two types. Actual pain refers to the real sensation of discomfort during a particular procedure, while expected pain is the anxious image of pain as the client awaits the onset of a particular action or procedure that would be performed on him by a dental hygienist. The influence of anxiety of the pain and discomfort of a client has been investigated, indicating that several factors in the dental clinic may cause the client to involuntarily increase his concept of pain. The simple sounds emanating from the dental instruments, as well as the sounds of other equipment, often generate a magnified reaction to the anxiety level of a client. The need to investigate the actual association between anxiety, pain and the administration of local anesthesia will therefore provide a better understanding of this matter. References Anderson, J. (2002). Use of local anesthesia by dental hygienists who completed a Minnesota CE course. The Journal of Dental Hygiene, 76, 35-46. Brand, H., Bekker, W. and Baart, J. (2009). Complications of local anaesthesia: An observational study. International Journal of Dental Hygiene, 7, 270-272. De Jongh, A. and Stouthard, M. (1993). Anxiety about dental hygienist treatment. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 21, 91-95. DeAngelis, S. and Goral, V. (2000). Utilization of local anesthesia by Arkansas dental hygienists, and dentists detegation/satisfaction relative to this function. Journal of Dental Hygiene, 74, 196-204. Gruythuysen, R. and Vertin, A. (1994). Dental hygienists: Independent practice and pain control services. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 22, 198-200. Overman, P. (2007). Articaine: A new alternative in dental hygiene pain control. Journal of Dental Hygiene, 81, 1-6. Scofiels, J., Gutmann, M., DeWald, J. and Campbell, P. (2005). Disciplinary actions associated with the administration of local anesthetics against dentists and dental hygienists. The Journal of Dental Hygiene, 79, 1-9. Wilkins, E.M. (1994). Clinical practice of the dental hygienist, 7th ed. Philadelphia, Williams & Wilkins, pp. 196-205. Read More