Dental device-associated problems: an analysis of FDA postmarket surveillance data

Adverse Events Related to Direct-To-Consumer Sequential Aligners-A Study of the MAUDE Database

Background-Direct-to-consumer (DTC) sequential aligners promote "teeth straightening" at a low cost and with added patient convenience. DTC sequential aligners have risen in popularity among the general public and sparked debate among dental professionals. Dental professionals argue that using these aligners without an in-person diagnosis and treatment planning protocol set by a licensed dentist or orthodontist may lead to adverse effects on teeth and surrounding structures. The objective of this study is to describe adverse clinical events associated with the use of DTC sequential aligners as reported in the Food and Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (FDA MAUDE) database. Methods-We searched the MAUDE database from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2020 for the product code of 'NXC' (sequential aligners). The year, type of adverse event, reporter occupation, and event description were noted. Results-651 reports associated with sequential aligners were found, of which 104 were related to DTC sequential aligners. Fifty-four adverse events were reported in 2019. From the event description, 41.3% comprised bite problems, 29.8% comprised orofacial pain, and 26.6% of patients had some form of periodontal sequelae. Furthermore, 69.2% of the patients followed up after an adverse event with a dentist not associated with DTC aligners. Conclusions-The use of DTC sequential aligners without dental supervision has led to oral health problems, as documented in the MAUDE database. Commonly reported adverse events include bite problems, pain, sensitivity, and periodontal disease, and some adverse events are irreversible.

Ultrasonic Device Complications in Endodontics: An Analysis of Adverse Events From the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience

OBJECTIVES

The author conducted a study to determine the frequency and types of adverse events associated with endodontic ultrasonic devices as reported to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database.

METHODS

Endodontic ultrasonic device-related adverse events reported to the MAUDE database from January 1, 2016, to October 31, 2020, were accessed and reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 1258 adverse event reports were submitted to the FDA MAUDE database, as classified under FDA product code ELC (ultrasonic scaler) during the study period. Among these reports, 403 were specific to the dedicated use of the 2 main types of ultrasonic devices used in endodontic treatment: ultrasonic tip devices and irrigation-related devices. Device malfunction-associated events, consisting primarily of device breakage, comprised 393 of the 1258 adverse event reports, whereas the remaining 10 reports were identified as being patient injury-related reports.

CONCLUSIONS

The frequency, root causes, and economic costs of ultrasonic tip device breakage remain largely unstudied. Ultrasonic endodontic device-related adverse events and patient injuries occurring within clinical practice may be underreported at the present time. Consequently, the risks and ultimate impacts to patients from ultrasonic endodontic device breakage, malfunction and unknown cause-related adverse events, and patient injuries during their clinical usage remain largely unknown at the present time. Eight of the 10 patient injury-related reports made to the FDA MAUDE database during the period under study, containing descriptions of varying degrees of injury severity, were associated with an irrigation-related device.

The dangers of dental devices as reported in the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database

BACKGROUND

The authors conducted a study to determine the frequency and type of adverse events (AEs) associated with dental devices reported to the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database.

METHODS

The authors downloaded and reviewed the dental device-related AEs reported to MAUDE from January 1, 1996, through December 31,2011.

RESULTS

MAUDE received a total of 1,978,056 reports between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2011. Among these reports, 28,046 (1.4%) AE reports were associated with dental devices. Within the dental AE reports that had event type information, 17,261 reported injuries, 7,777 reported device malfunctions, and 66 reported deaths. Among the 66 entries classified as death reports, 52 reported a death in the description; the remaining were either misclassified or lacked sufficient information in the report to determine whether a death had occurred. Of the dental device-associated AEs, 53.5% pertained to endosseous implants.

CONCLUSIONS

A plethora of devices are used in dental care. To achieve Element 1 of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Patient Safety Initiative, clinicians and researchers must be able to monitor the safety of dental devices. Although MAUDE was identified by the authors as essentially the sole source of this valuable information on adverse events, their investigations led them to conclude that MAUDE had substantial limitations that prevent it from being the broad-based patient safety sentinel the profession requires.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

As potential contributors to MAUDE, dental care teams play a key role in improving the profession's access to information about the safety of dental devices.

Monitoring device safety in interventional cardiology

OBJECTIVE

A variety of postmarketing surveillance strategies to monitor the safety of medical devices have been supported by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but there are few systems to automate surveillance. Our objective was to develop a system to perform real-time monitoring of safety data using a variety of process control techniques.

DESIGN

The Web-based Data Extraction and Longitudinal Time Analysis (DELTA) system imports clinical data in real-time from an electronic database and generates alerts for potentially unsafe devices or procedures. The statistical techniques used are statistical process control (SPC), logistic regression (LR), and Bayesian updating statistics (BUS).

MEASUREMENTS

We selected in-patient mortality following implantation of the Cypher drug-eluting coronary stent to evaluate our system. Data from the University of Michigan Consortium Bare-Metal Stent Study was used to calculate the event rate alerting boundaries. Data analysis was performed on local catheterization data from Brigham and Women's Hospital from July 1, 2003, shortly after the Cypher release, to December 31, 2004, including 2,270 cases with 27 observed deaths.

RESULTS

The single-stratum SPC had alerts in months 4 and 10. The multistrata SPC had alerts in months 5, 10, and 18 in the moderate-risk stratum, and months 1, 4, 7, and 10 in the high-risk stratum. The only cumulative alerts were in the first month for the high-risk stratum of the multistrata SPC. The LR method showed no monthly or cumulative alerts. The BUS method showed an alert in the first month for the high-risk stratum.

CONCLUSION

The system performed adequately within the Brigham and Women's Hospital Intranet environment based on the design goals. All three cumulative methods agreed that the overall observed event rates were not significantly higher for the new medical device than for a closely related medical device and were consistent with the observation that the initial concerns about this device dissipated as more data accumulated.

An overview of the current status of national reporting systems for adverse reactions to dental materials

OBJECTIVES

Since all dental materials pose a potential risk to patients and members of the dental team, the post-market monitoring of adverse reactions caused by dental materials should be considered essential. This article reviews the current status of post-market monitoring of adverse reactions to dental materials and highlights some of the issues that arise in trying to establish an evidence base on the characteristics of adverse reactions to dental materials.

METHODS

Norway, Sweden and more recently the UK have sought to monitor adverse reactions to dental materials systematically and proactively in an effort to add to the evidence base on the safety of dental materials. Their experiences in undertaking post-market surveillance have been combined in preparing this article.

RESULTS

To date the Norwegian, Swedish and the UK projects has received 1268 reports over 11 years, 848 reports over 5.5 years and 1117 reports over 3 years, respectively, relating to adverse reactions seen or experienced by dental personnel and patients. Presently, there are no harmonized criteria for what can be classified as an adverse reaction related to dental materials. Under reporting is a recognised problem and lack of awareness and lack of clarity as to what constitutes an adverse reaction may be contributory factors. A pro-active reporting system takes a considerable time to become established, but can generate a lot of potentially useful information.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to raise the awareness among dental professionals of the potential for adverse reactions due to dental materials and to develop an internationally accepted system of data gathering that can produce the evidence that reflect the extent, severity and incidence of adverse reactions to dental materials.