P013: DENTAL AND ORAL INJURY PREVENTION DEVICES IN ANESTHESIOLOGY: A SCOPING REVIEW
Taylor Yuska, MS; Aleya DeVries; Michael Weingarten, MD
Nova Southeastern University Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Osteopathic Medicine
Introduction/Background: Dental and oral injuries are among the most common complications of airway management and represent a significant source of patient morbidity and medicolegal exposure. Multiple devices have been developed to mitigate dental and soft-tissue injury; however, the extent, consistency, and methodological quality of evidence supporting their use remain uncertain. This scoping review aimed to systematically map and characterize the existing literature evaluating dental and oral injury prevention devices in anesthesiology.
Methods: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Web of Science were searched for English-language primary studies published between 2015 and 2025 that evaluated devices intended to prevent dental or oral injury during anesthesia or airway manipulation. Eligible studies were screened and selected using predefined inclusion criteria. Data extraction focused on study design, population, device characteristics, outcomes, and methodological limitations.
Results: Eight studies met inclusion criteria, comprising randomized controlled trials, retrospective clinical studies, simulation studies, and finite element analyses. Devices evaluated included intraoral mouthguards, dental splints, bite-blocking devices, and external stabilization systems. Evidence clustered into three thematic domains: clinical outcomes, biomechanical effects, and procedural implications. Clinical studies reported lower rates of dental and soft-tissue injury associated with device use, without significant impairment of intubation performance. Biomechanical and simulation studies demonstrated that device material properties and structural rigidity influenced stress distribution across maxillary incisors. Procedural assessments indicated that device use was operationally feasible and did not materially disrupt airway management.
Discussion/Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that dental and oral injury prevention devices may reduce perioperative dental injury without demonstrable procedural disadvantage. However, interpretation is limited by small sample sizes, heterogeneous device designs, and inconsistent outcome definitions. Overall, the literature remains methodologically diverse and clinically inconclusive, underscoring the need for standardized, prospective investigations to clarify the role of preventive devices in anesthetic practice.