Dental Hygiene Student and Faculty Perspectives on Disposable vs. Traditional Local Anesthetic Syringes: A pilot study.

Q2 Dentistry
Rina A Nowka, Dianne L Sefo, Raj Sheth, Andrea L Beall
{"title":"Dental Hygiene Student and Faculty Perspectives on Disposable vs. Traditional Local Anesthetic Syringes: A pilot study.","authors":"Rina A Nowka, Dianne L Sefo, Raj Sheth, Andrea L Beall","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose</b> The popularity of disposable safety syringes has grown because of their established safety record. Previous studies on local anesthetic syringes have mainly concentrated on safety features and the prevention of needlestick injuries, often neglecting the preferences of practitioners. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the preferences of dental hygiene students and faculty for traditional metal syringes compared to disposable safety syringes.<b>Methods</b> An 11-item questionnaire was distributed to a convenience sample of 61 dental hygiene students and 3 faculty members in a pain management course. The questionnaires were administered after the participants' first exposure to local anesthetic administration on a mannequin and after their final exposure on a live patient to assess any changes in preferences. The post-questionnaire included the same 11 questions, along with an open-ended question inviting participants to share their final thoughts. Data were collected and entered into an Excel spreadsheet for descriptive statistics and inductive content analysis<b>Results</b> The response rate was 93.44% (n=57) for the initial questionnaire and 90.16% (n=55) for the final questionnaire administered to the dental hygiene students. All of the faculty members (n=3) completed both questionnaires. Participants preferred the traditional syringe over the disposable safety syringe for ease of use/comfort and control of the apparatus during set up, aspiration, and injection. However, preferences for disposable safety syringes were indicated in the responses related to syringe break down and clean-up.<b>Conclusion</b> This study assessed the preferences of dental hygiene students and faculty for traditional metal versus disposable safety syringes, revealing a clear preference for the former despite some limitations. Understanding how syringe design affects user comfort and safety could enhance disposable syringe technology and its adoption.</p>","PeriodicalId":52471,"journal":{"name":"Journal of dental hygiene : JDH / American Dental Hygienists'' Association","volume":"99 2","pages":"26-36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of dental hygiene : JDH / American Dental Hygienists'' Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose The popularity of disposable safety syringes has grown because of their established safety record. Previous studies on local anesthetic syringes have mainly concentrated on safety features and the prevention of needlestick injuries, often neglecting the preferences of practitioners. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the preferences of dental hygiene students and faculty for traditional metal syringes compared to disposable safety syringes.Methods An 11-item questionnaire was distributed to a convenience sample of 61 dental hygiene students and 3 faculty members in a pain management course. The questionnaires were administered after the participants' first exposure to local anesthetic administration on a mannequin and after their final exposure on a live patient to assess any changes in preferences. The post-questionnaire included the same 11 questions, along with an open-ended question inviting participants to share their final thoughts. Data were collected and entered into an Excel spreadsheet for descriptive statistics and inductive content analysisResults The response rate was 93.44% (n=57) for the initial questionnaire and 90.16% (n=55) for the final questionnaire administered to the dental hygiene students. All of the faculty members (n=3) completed both questionnaires. Participants preferred the traditional syringe over the disposable safety syringe for ease of use/comfort and control of the apparatus during set up, aspiration, and injection. However, preferences for disposable safety syringes were indicated in the responses related to syringe break down and clean-up.Conclusion This study assessed the preferences of dental hygiene students and faculty for traditional metal versus disposable safety syringes, revealing a clear preference for the former despite some limitations. Understanding how syringe design affects user comfort and safety could enhance disposable syringe technology and its adoption.

目的 一次性安全注射器因其安全记录良好而越来越受欢迎。以往关于局麻药注射器的研究主要集中在安全特性和预防针刺伤害方面,往往忽略了从业人员的偏好。本研究的目的是评估牙科卫生专业学生和教师对传统金属注射器和一次性安全注射器的偏好。方法 在疼痛管理课程中,向 61 名牙科卫生专业学生和 3 名教师发放了一份 11 个项目的调查问卷。在学员首次接触在人体模型上使用局部麻醉剂以及最后一次接触活体患者后,对他们进行了问卷调查,以评估他们的偏好是否发生了变化。后期问卷包括同样的 11 个问题,以及一个开放式问题,请学员分享他们的最终想法。数据收集后输入 Excel 电子表格,用于描述性统计和归纳内容分析。 结果 对牙科卫生学学生进行的初始问卷调查的回复率为 93.44%(n=57),最终问卷调查的回复率为 90.16%(n=55)。所有教师(n=3)都填写了两份问卷。与一次性安全注射器相比,参与者更倾向于使用传统注射器,因为在设置、抽吸和注射过程中,使用传统注射器更方便/更舒适,也更容易控制仪器。结论 本研究评估了牙科卫生专业师生对传统金属注射器和一次性安全注射器的偏好,结果显示,尽管存在一些局限性,但他们明显偏好前者。了解注射器的设计如何影响使用者的舒适度和安全性,可以提高一次性注射器技术及其采用率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: The Journal of Dental Hygiene is the refereed, scientific publication of the American Dental Hygienists’ Association. It promotes the publication of original research related to the practice and education of dental hygiene. It supports the development and dissemination of a dental hygiene body of knowledge through scientific inquiry in basic, applied, and clinical research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信