Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: Dental healthcare personnel face the potential danger of being exposed to infectious patients while administering local anesthesia injections during dental operations. This could lead to unintentional transfer of infectious diseases from patients to physicians. Although safety measures such as the One-hand-scoop technique and the use of safety syringes, plastic needle cap holders, and needles with safety caps are in place, there have been instances of needle stick injuries reported in clinics. This might be due to the lack of adherence to conventional safety measures or the impracticality of safety techniques and safety syringes. This article aims to demonstrate the utilization of dental tweezers, specifically London College tweezers or dental forceps, for the secure recapping of needles, eliminating the requirement for extra equipment or devices.
METHODS: After obtaining ethical approval (Approval No.: 024-01-2024) from the College of Dentistry, Dar Al Uloom University, 67 dental professionals, with consent for participation in the study, were included. They were requested to use dental tweezers/London College tweezers and dental extraction forceps such as maxillary anterior, mandibular anterior, and maxillary bayonet root forceps individually to recap the local anesthetic needles. The efficacy of these techniques was evaluated against the one-hand scoop technique for its ease, convenience, and reliability in preventing needle stick injuries.
RESULTS: The evaluation of dental professionals regarding the ease of using dental tweezers to recap needles, compared to the one-hand scoop technique (p=0.592), maxillary bayonet root forceps (p=0.746), mandibular anterior forceps (p=0.380), and maxillary anterior forceps (p=0.808), did not yield statistically significant results. The assessment of the procedural simplicity of the one-hand scoop technique showed a satisfaction rate of over 40%, whereas the application of dental tweezers resulted in a satisfaction rate of 30%. However, the use of dental tweezers for needle recapping resulted in a satisfaction rate of over 50%, compared to a satisfaction rate of 30% for the one-handed scoop technique.
CONCLUSIONS: There is no statistically significant difference in the assessment of the efficacy of dental tweezers and the one-hand scoop technique, bayonet root forceps, mandibular anterior forceps, maxillary anterior forceps, and dental tweezers for the needle capping technique. Therefore, dental forceps can be used instead of the one-handed scoop approach. The needle recapping procedure outlined in our study, aimed at preventing needle stick injuries, is simple to implement, and all dental specialties have convenient access to the required instruments.
METHODS: After obtaining ethical approval (Approval No.: 024-01-2024) from the College of Dentistry, Dar Al Uloom University, 67 dental professionals, with consent for participation in the study, were included. They were requested to use dental tweezers/London College tweezers and dental extraction forceps such as maxillary anterior, mandibular anterior, and maxillary bayonet root forceps individually to recap the local anesthetic needles. The efficacy of these techniques was evaluated against the one-hand scoop technique for its ease, convenience, and reliability in preventing needle stick injuries.
RESULTS: The evaluation of dental professionals regarding the ease of using dental tweezers to recap needles, compared to the one-hand scoop technique (p=0.592), maxillary bayonet root forceps (p=0.746), mandibular anterior forceps (p=0.380), and maxillary anterior forceps (p=0.808), did not yield statistically significant results. The assessment of the procedural simplicity of the one-hand scoop technique showed a satisfaction rate of over 40%, whereas the application of dental tweezers resulted in a satisfaction rate of 30%. However, the use of dental tweezers for needle recapping resulted in a satisfaction rate of over 50%, compared to a satisfaction rate of 30% for the one-handed scoop technique.
CONCLUSIONS: There is no statistically significant difference in the assessment of the efficacy of dental tweezers and the one-hand scoop technique, bayonet root forceps, mandibular anterior forceps, maxillary anterior forceps, and dental tweezers for the needle capping technique. Therefore, dental forceps can be used instead of the one-handed scoop approach. The needle recapping procedure outlined in our study, aimed at preventing needle stick injuries, is simple to implement, and all dental specialties have convenient access to the required instruments.
摘要：
目的：牙科保健人员在牙科手术过程中进行局部麻醉注射时，面临着暴露于感染患者的潜在危险。这可能导致传染病从患者到医生的无意转移。尽管采取了诸如单手勺技术和使用安全注射器之类的安全措施，塑料针帽支架，带安全帽的针头就位，诊所有针刺伤的报道。这可能是由于缺乏对常规安全措施的坚持或安全技术和安全注射器的不切实际。本文旨在证明牙科镊子的使用，特别是伦敦大学的镊子或牙科钳，为了安全地收回针头，消除额外的设备或设备的要求。
方法：获得道德批准后（批准号：：024-01-2024）来自牙科学院，DarAlUloom大学,67名牙科专业人员，在同意参与研究的情况下，包括在内。他们被要求使用牙科镊子/伦敦大学镊子和拔牙钳，例如上颌前牙，下颌前,和上颌刺刀根钳单独重述局部麻醉针。这些技术的功效是针对单手勺子技术进行评估的，因为它很容易，便利性，以及防止针刺伤害的可靠性。
结果：对牙科专业人员关于使用牙科镊子重针的便利性的评估，与单手勺技术相比(p=0.592)，上颌刺刀根钳（p=0.746），下颌前镊子（p=0.380），和上颌前镊子（p=0.808），没有产生统计学上显著的结果。对单手勺技术的程序简单性的评估显示，满意率超过40％，而牙科镊子的应用导致了30%的满意率。然而,使用牙科镊子进行针头回收的满意率超过50％，相比之下，单手勺技术的满意率为30%。
结论：对牙科镊子和单手勺技术的疗效评估没有统计学上的显着差异，刺刀根钳，下颌前镊子，上颌前镊子,和用于针头盖帽技术的牙科镊子。因此,可以使用牙科镊子代替单手勺方法。在我们的研究中概述的针头复盖程序，旨在防止针刺伤，实现简单，所有牙科专业都可以方便地使用所需的仪器。
方法：获得道德批准后（批准号：：024-01-2024）来自牙科学院，DarAlUloom大学,67名牙科专业人员，在同意参与研究的情况下，包括在内。他们被要求使用牙科镊子/伦敦大学镊子和拔牙钳，例如上颌前牙，下颌前,和上颌刺刀根钳单独重述局部麻醉针。这些技术的功效是针对单手勺子技术进行评估的，因为它很容易，便利性，以及防止针刺伤害的可靠性。
结果：对牙科专业人员关于使用牙科镊子重针的便利性的评估，与单手勺技术相比(p=0.592)，上颌刺刀根钳（p=0.746），下颌前镊子（p=0.380），和上颌前镊子（p=0.808），没有产生统计学上显著的结果。对单手勺技术的程序简单性的评估显示，满意率超过40％，而牙科镊子的应用导致了30%的满意率。然而,使用牙科镊子进行针头回收的满意率超过50％，相比之下，单手勺技术的满意率为30%。
结论：对牙科镊子和单手勺技术的疗效评估没有统计学上的显着差异，刺刀根钳，下颌前镊子，上颌前镊子,和用于针头盖帽技术的牙科镊子。因此,可以使用牙科镊子代替单手勺方法。在我们的研究中概述的针头复盖程序，旨在防止针刺伤，实现简单，所有牙科专业都可以方便地使用所需的仪器。
