A carregar...
Publicação
Segurança dos géis anestésicos tópicos na saúde oral infantil: trabalho de investigação
| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Projeto de pós-graduação_40269 | 4.81 MB | Adobe PDF |
Autores
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
Introdução: A erupção dentária é um processo natural, mas pode provocar desconforto considerável nas crianças, levando os pais a procurarem estratégias para aliviar os sintomas. Entre estas estratégias, os géis anestésicos tópicos destacam-se pelo uso frequente na prática clínica e em contexto domiciliário. Contudo, a utilização inadequada destes produtos pode representar riscos, como reações adversas locais e efeitos sistémicos graves. Assim, compreender o conhecimento e as práticas dos profissionais de saúde em relação a estes géis é fundamental para promover uma utilização segura e baseada em evidência científica.
Objetivos: O presente estudo teve como objetivo avaliar o conhecimento, as práticas clínicas e as perceções de pediatras, médicos dentistas e médicos de família relativamente ao uso de géis anestésicos tópicos em crianças, com especial enfoque na sua segurança, eficácia e impacto na saúde oral infantil.
Metodologia: Foi conduzido um estudo descritivo, observacional e transversal, aprovado pela Comissão de Ética da Universidade Fernando Pessoa (FCS/MMED–692/25, 10/02/2025). A recolha de dados foi realizada através da aplicação de um questionário a profissionais de saúde em contextos públicos e privados. Resultados: A amostra foi constituída por 102 participantes, sendo a maioria médicos dentistas (95,1%), predominantemente a exercer em clínicas privadas (76,2%). Mais de metade (52,9%) afirmou conhecer e utilizar géis anestésicos tópicos, sendo a lidocaína o agente mais referido (48,9%), seguida da benzocaína (31,7%) e da prilocaína (18,3%). Contudo, 20,6% dos inquiridos desconheciam os potenciais efeitos adversos destes produtos. Entre os efeitos mais citados destacaram-se as reações alérgicas (32,5%), a irritação local (23,6%) e a toxicidade sistémica (17%). Relativamente às práticas clínicas, 71,6% dos participantes afirmaram recomendar a utilização dos géis em situações específicas, embora apenas 14,7% os indicassem para uso domiciliário durante a erupção dentária, geralmente com restrição etária. A análise estatística revelou associações significativas: maior experiência profissional esteve relacionada com maior conhecimento técnico (p=0,036); os profissionais com mais conhecimento identificaram com maior frequência os efeitos adversos como motivo para não recomendar o uso (p=0,007) e foram também os que mais alertaram os pais para os riscos (p<0,001). Verificou-se ainda associação entre a recomendação para uso domiciliário e a existência de restrição etária (p<0,001), bem como entre essa recomendação e a prática de alertar os pais (p=0,008). Não se observaram correlações significativas entre o tempo de experiência e a frequência de recomendação (p=0,615).
Conclusão: Persistem lacunas no conhecimento técnico e na comunicação com os pais sobre o uso destes géis, bem como preocupações quanto ao papel dos farmacêuticos na sua indicação. Os resultados reforçam a necessidade de desenvolver protocolos clínicos, promover formação contínua e implementar campanhas de sensibilização, visando assegurar uma utilização segura e baseada em evidência destes produtos na pediatria.
Introduction: Tooth eruption is a natural process but can cause considerable discomfort in children, leading parents to seek strategies to relieve symptoms. Among these strategies, topical anesthetic gels stand out due to their frequent use both in clinical practice and at home. However, the inappropriate use of these products may pose risks, such as local adverse reactions and serious systemic effects. Therefore, understanding the knowledge and practices of healthcare professionals regarding these gels is essential to promote their safe and evidence-based use. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the knowledge, clinical practices, and perceptions of pediatricians, dentists, and family physicians regarding the use of topical anesthetic gels in children, with a particular focus on their safety, efficacy, and impact on pediatric oral health. Methodology: A descriptive, observational, and cross-sectional study was conducted, approved by the Ethics Committee of Universidade Fernando Pessoa (FCS/MMED–692/25, 10/02/2025). Data collection was carried out using a questionnaire administered to healthcare professionals working in both public and private settings. Results: The sample consisted of 102 participants, most of whom were dentists (95.1%), predominantly practicing in private clinics (76.2%). More than half (52.9%) reported being familiar with and using topical anesthetic gels, with lidocaine being the most frequently mentioned agent (48.9%), followed by benzocaine (31.7%) and prilocaine (18.3%). However, 20.6% of respondents were unaware of the potential adverse effects of these products. The most commonly reported adverse effects were allergic reactions (32.5%), local irritation (23.6%), and systemic toxicity (17%). Regarding clinical practices, 71.6% of participants stated that they recommended the use of these gels in specific situations, although only 14.7% suggested their home use during teething, generally with age-related restrictions. Statistical analysis revealed significant associations: greater professional experience was linked to higher technical knowledge (p=0.036); professionals with greater knowledge were more likely to cite adverse effects as a reason not to recommend their use (p=0.007) and were also more likely to warn parents about associated risks (p<0.001). There was also a significant association between recommending home use and applying age restrictions (p<0.001), as well as between this recommendation and warning parents (p=0.008). No significant correlation was found between years of professional experience and frequency of recommendation (p=0.615). Conclusion: Gaps remain in technical knowledge and communication with parents regarding the use of topical anesthetic gels, as well as concerns about the role of pharmacists in their recommendation. The findings highlight the need to develop standardized clinical protocols, promote continuing professional education, and implement awareness campaigns to ensure the safe and evidence-based use of these products in pediatric care.
Introduction: Tooth eruption is a natural process but can cause considerable discomfort in children, leading parents to seek strategies to relieve symptoms. Among these strategies, topical anesthetic gels stand out due to their frequent use both in clinical practice and at home. However, the inappropriate use of these products may pose risks, such as local adverse reactions and serious systemic effects. Therefore, understanding the knowledge and practices of healthcare professionals regarding these gels is essential to promote their safe and evidence-based use. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the knowledge, clinical practices, and perceptions of pediatricians, dentists, and family physicians regarding the use of topical anesthetic gels in children, with a particular focus on their safety, efficacy, and impact on pediatric oral health. Methodology: A descriptive, observational, and cross-sectional study was conducted, approved by the Ethics Committee of Universidade Fernando Pessoa (FCS/MMED–692/25, 10/02/2025). Data collection was carried out using a questionnaire administered to healthcare professionals working in both public and private settings. Results: The sample consisted of 102 participants, most of whom were dentists (95.1%), predominantly practicing in private clinics (76.2%). More than half (52.9%) reported being familiar with and using topical anesthetic gels, with lidocaine being the most frequently mentioned agent (48.9%), followed by benzocaine (31.7%) and prilocaine (18.3%). However, 20.6% of respondents were unaware of the potential adverse effects of these products. The most commonly reported adverse effects were allergic reactions (32.5%), local irritation (23.6%), and systemic toxicity (17%). Regarding clinical practices, 71.6% of participants stated that they recommended the use of these gels in specific situations, although only 14.7% suggested their home use during teething, generally with age-related restrictions. Statistical analysis revealed significant associations: greater professional experience was linked to higher technical knowledge (p=0.036); professionals with greater knowledge were more likely to cite adverse effects as a reason not to recommend their use (p=0.007) and were also more likely to warn parents about associated risks (p<0.001). There was also a significant association between recommending home use and applying age restrictions (p<0.001), as well as between this recommendation and warning parents (p=0.008). No significant correlation was found between years of professional experience and frequency of recommendation (p=0.615). Conclusion: Gaps remain in technical knowledge and communication with parents regarding the use of topical anesthetic gels, as well as concerns about the role of pharmacists in their recommendation. The findings highlight the need to develop standardized clinical protocols, promote continuing professional education, and implement awareness campaigns to ensure the safe and evidence-based use of these products in pediatric care.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Géis anestésicos tópicos Pediatria Segurança medicamentosa Profissionais de saúde Educação parental Prática clínica Topical anesthetic gels Pediatrics Drug safety Healthcare professionals Parental education Clinical practice