Skip to content


  • Case Report
  • Open Access

Dental root elevator embedded into a subgingival caries: a case report

  • 1Email author,
  • 2,
  • 1,
  • 3 and
  • 1
BMC Research Notes20158:60

  • Received: 10 November 2014
  • Accepted: 12 February 2015
  • Published:



Breakage of surgical instruments is a rare complication. A mistake in operator technique or sub-standard/aged tools could lead to this type of accident. A tooth elevator is an instrument used in minor oral surgical procedures to luxate the tooth or fractured root from its socket. The authors have not found any previously published cases reporting the breakage of a tooth elevator tip which then remained as a foreign body in a hidden caries cavity.

Case presentation

A 28-year-old African black male was referred to a hospital in Tanzania for an intraoral radiography. The patient explained that six months previously his mandibular left third molar had been extracted. Whilst the healing process had been satisfactory, he had recently experienced acute oral pain in this region. The dental X-ray showed an image consistent with a piece of broken metal embedded in a distal subgingival caries at the mandibular left second molar.


Oral and dental surgeons should take particular care when employing metal instruments with strong force in poorly visible areas. A radiographic study should be carried out when instrument breakage occurs. If an unexpected accident takes place during a surgical procedure, the patient must be informed in accordance with ethical codes, and suitable measures adopted to resolve the issue.


  • Tooth elevator
  • Instrument breakage
  • Radiological finding
  • Surgical stainless steel


Foreign bodies in the oropharyngeal region are a problem frequently faced by otolaryngologists and dental surgeons. The accidental ingestion of sharp elements such as fish bones or toothpick pieces is quite common in the oral cavity and removal can be easily performed through simple manipulation. However, other foreign bodies in this region may require a surgical approach and/or endoscopic techniques under general anaesthesia [1,2].

Accidents can take place during surgery due to a number of factors including operator technique and sub-standard or aged instruments. Manufacture is strictly controlled, particularly in the case of dental, medical and surgical instruments which could cause serious injury to patients if they proved to be faulty. Occasionally, however, alterations in manufacturing technique or ineffective quality control occur and they are employed unknowingly [3].

A tooth elevator is an instrument used in minor oral surgical procedures to luxate the tooth or fractured root from its socket. There is a vast range of elevator designs, including right and left sides for several types (Figure 1). Alveolar bone fracture and fracture/luxation of the adjacent tooth are two common problems associated with their use.
Figure 1
Figure 1

Luxating dental elevators with curved bladed tips to facilitate root extraction.

It is well known that any tooth extraction requires a preoperative radiograph to obtain information about root morphology and possible concomitant dental pathology such as interproximal caries or apical lesions. The aim of the present report is to describe an incidental radiographic finding that was consistent with a tooth elevator tip which had remained as a foreign body in a hidden caries cavity for approximately six months.

Case presentation

A 28-year-old African black male was referred to a hospital in Tanzania for an intraoral radiography. His major complaint was an acute, diffuse-patterned oral pain in the left mandibular area. The patient had no significant previous medical history. A clinical examination confirmed satisfactory dental hygiene without any apparently relevant findings. The patient explained that his mandibular left third molar had been extracted six month previously and that the surgery had been quite laborious and lengthy. Although the healing process had been satisfactory, considerable pain had recently begun in this area. The dental X-ray showed an image consistent with a piece of metal embedded in a subgingival distal caries at the mandibular left second molar (37), which was probably related to a previous tooth impaction process of the mandibular left third molar (38). Two periapical lesions detected at the mandibular left second molar roots might have justified his acute tooth ache due to acute exacerbation (Figure 2).
Figure 2
Figure 2

Periapical radiographic image: Notice the curved blade elevator tip broken and embedded in a subgingival caries cavity of the mandibular left second molar (37). Observe two radiolucent apical lesions in the affected molar (37) and a slight radiopacity located on the distal part of the first molar crown (36), which was a consequence of the Kocher clamp used during a manual developing process.

Initially, the differential diagnosis of this radiographic finding was that of a possibly loosened or released piece of amalgam. Nevertheless, the patient had never previously undergone any dental fillings. After repeating the X-ray twice in order to rule out a possible image artefact, it was concluded that during the third molar extraction a curved blade elevator tip had fractured and impacted into the subgingival caries cavity. As the patient had only been referred for a dental X-ray he was given a written note explaining the finding. His dentist was informed about the need to perform an occlusal access cavity in order to initiate a root canal treatment and remove the foreign body from the second molar (37).


The breakage of some instruments, such as endodontic files and dental burs, due to a number of factors including defective manufacturing, stress, fatigue, rust, and poor handling is not unknown in dentistry [4]. Few papers, however, in the literature have dealt with the breakage of instruments used for exodontias. Yasuhara et al., registered various medical accidents caused by defective surgical instruments over two years. In the maxillofacial speciality the authors reported 7 incidences out of 548 operations [5]. According to Kluess et al., it is important that any incident with orthopaedic surgical instruments should be reported to the manufacturer and the health authorities for sufficient processing and risk assessment of the accident [6]. In the case of some reusable metal instruments both titanium alloys and stainless steel are in the high performance range. The latter is the most widely used material for instruments and, according to surgical requirements, its alloys vary: the most frequent being martensitic and austenitic stainless steels. Biomedical cutting instruments are often made of martensitic stainless steel due to its pronounced durability coupled with acceptable corrosion resistance. Surgical instruments that may be subject to high pressure forces, such as a dental elevator, are composed of austenitic stainless steel as it is less brittle [7]. A safe and effective elevator should have extreme values for torque, and high stress values [8].

Surgical instruments manufactures should carry out strict quality controls and have their instruments bear a visible mark as a sign of guarantee. Various authors have suggested that the inferior quality of some surgical instruments may be a reflection of poor working conditions and low standards, particularly in the developing world. Responsibility lies with the suppliers from developed countries manufacturing in the developing world who behave in an unethical manner, maximising profits and minimising the remuneration of the people who actually produce the goods [9-11].

The location and retrieval of broken fragments during a tooth extraction procedure should not be a serious problem, in most cases the fragment is immediately identified. Any instrument breakage implies the obligation to search for the fractured fragment and remove it in order to avoid possible infection and prevent complications due to swallowing or aspiration of the fragment [3]. Some of the metallic pieces of the surgical instrument could end up in a fibrous issue capsule and gain access to the adjacent spaces [12]. The case we report here is unusual in that the elevator tip was embedded in a subgingival caries and remained there asymptomatically for approximately six months.

At present there are a number of radiological explorations to identify metallic foreign objects. Cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) is an excellent tool to locate metallic foreign objects [13]. However, a single periapical radiograph or using more than one radiograph to apply a tube-shift technique, may be sufficient. Whenever possible, simpler techniques should be first applied. In addition, occlusal radiography can also be employed as necessary. If an occlusal film is not available a periapical radiograph can be put on the surface of the tooth, or on the edentulous crest, and this may reveal an embedded foreign object. If with using these techniques, the foreign object is not detected, then other more sophisticated techniques such as CBCT should be applied. In our case, only conventional intraoral periapical radiographic imaging was available, due to limited hospital facilities, to inform the referral doctor about our findings.

The care of medical and surgical instruments has a decisive effect on their efficiency and durability. Damage due to breakage and scratches is usually caused by their being incorrectly stored and secured during sterilization, or being carelessly positioned in the treatment area thus favouring falls. Additionally, metal instruments used in clinical practice may be subjected to fatigue due to the effects of sterilization processes. Manufacturers recommend that all instruments made of metal should be checked regularly before packaging in order to diminish the risk of possible incidences [14].

The concept of honest and correct communication between physician and patient is a crucial issue. It is linked to the disclosure of adverse events and errors, a complex topic covering medical, psychological, legal, and ethical aspects [15-17]. Current socio-cultural trends, which condition the medical profession in a variety of ways, and a greater focus on the dignity and rights of the patient, have led to a growing tendency to fully inform patients with regard to their illness, progress, and therapy. Nevertheless, it is still common for doctors to choose to remain silent or manipulate the truth in some way, especially when the prognosis or accident is serious or negative and the patient seems to be having real difficulties accepting it [18]. As clinicians, this reported case should be helpful by reminding us of the importance of our ethical code with respect to the patients, especially when an adverse eventuality appears during a surgical procedure.


In dentistry is always advisable to use good quality and reliable brands for any instrument. Whenever any retention of a broken metal instrument is suspected an imaging radiological study will indicate its position and help avoid potential surgical complications. Preoperative and postoperative check-ups of instruments are also essential. Dental and oral surgeons should be particularly careful when metal instruments deployed with strong force are used in poorly visible areas such as the third molar region. If an unexpected accident takes place during a surgical procedure the patient should be informed in accordance with ethical codes, and suitable measures adopted to resolve the issue.




Cone beam computerized tomography



Clínics Associats, a well-established Professional Partnership in Terrassa (Barcelona), deserves a special mention for leading and supporting the KiliBarnaDental project at Soweto General Hospital in Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania. The authors want to express their gratitude to Miguel Torres Foundation, The Spanish Society of Periodontology (SEPA) and Straumann, SA (Spain) for their contributions. The authors also thank Dolors Icart-Rovira, nurse practitioner, for her assistance.

Authors’ Affiliations

Departament d’Odontostomatologia, Facultat d’Odontologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Feixa Llarga s/n, 08907, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
Servei d’Odontologia, Hospital Universitari Sant Joan de Déu - UB, Esplugues de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
Dental and Oral Department, Soweto General Hospital, Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania


  1. Kim YH, Cho SI, Do NY, Park JH. A case of pharyngeal injury in a patient with swallowed toothbrush: a case report. BMC Res Notes. 2014;7:788.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Brunet-Llobet LL, Miranda-Rius J, Lahor-Soler E, Mrina O, Nadal A. A gray-purple mass on the floor of the mouth: gigantic mucogingival pyogenic granuloma in a teenage patient. Open Dent J. 2014;8:125–8.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ruprecht A, Ross A. Location of broken instrument fragments. J Can Dent Assoc. 1981;47:245.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Pierro VS, de Morais AP, Granado L, Maia LC. An unusual accident during a primary molar extraction. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2010;34:193–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Yasuhara H, Fukatsu K, Komatsu T, Obayashi T, Saito Y, Uetera Y. Prevention of medical accidents caused by defective surgical instruments. Surgery. 2012;151:153–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Kluess D, Zenk K, Mittelmeier W. Reportable incidents with surgical instruments in orthopedic surgery. Orthopade. 2014;43:561–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Nelson CA. Material selection indices for design of surgical instruments with long tubular shafts. J Med Eng Technol. 2013;37:102–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Kandler HJ. The design and construction of dental elevators. J Dent. 1982;10:317–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Brophy T, Srodon PD, Briggs C, Barry P, Steatham J, Birch MJ. Quality of surgical instruments. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2006;88:390–3.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bhutta MF. Fair trade for surgical instruments. BMJ. 2006;333:297–9.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Buttha MF. Quality of surgical instruments. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2007;89:190–2.Google Scholar
  12. Balaji SM. Burried broken extraction instrument fragment. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2013;3:93–4.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Eggers G, Welzel T, Mukhamadiev D, Wörtche R, Hassfeld S, Mühling J. X-ray-based volumetric imaging of foreign bodies: a comparison of computed tomography and digital volume tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65:1880–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Moore UJ, Fanibunda K, Gross MJ. The use of a metal detector for localisation of a metallic foreign body in the floor of the mouth. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993;31:191–2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Wu AW, McCay L, Levinson W, Iedema R, Wallace G, Boyle DJ, et al. Disclosing Adverse Events to Patients: International Norms and Trends. J Patient Saf. 2014. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  16. Hammami MM, Al-Gaai EA, Al-Jawarneh Y, Amer H, Hammami MB, Eissa A, et al. Patients’ perceived purpose of clinical informed consent: Mill’s individual autonomy model is preferred. BMC Med Ethics. 2014;15:2.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hammami MM, Al-Jawarneh Y, Hammami MB, Al Qadire M. Information disclosure in clinical informed consent: “reasonable” patient’s perception of norm in high-context communication culture. BMC Med Ethics. 2014;15:3.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Turillazzi E, Neri M. Medical error disclosure: from the therapeutic alliance to risk management: the vision of the new Italian code of medical ethics. BMC Med Ethics. 2014;15:57.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar


© Miranda-Rius et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.