By way of (b)(6), email received from (b)(6), quality event form.Report from (b)(6) dental practice.Describes alleges harm event from (b)(6) 2015.(b)(6) female patient ((b)(6)) is having irritation/blistering and more toward back cheek and tonsil area.Product in question, gluma desensitizer liquid, was applied with a microbrush to dry area for crown prep.The patient had treatment 2/26 and came in 3/2 for follow up and advised reaction, tooth #30 (4th crown she's had w/doctor) patient was very angry.(b)(6) 2015 (b)(6) spoke with (b)(6) who will have (b)(6) call back.(b)(6) 2015 (b)(6) spoke with (b)(6) , who will have (b)(6) call back.(b)(6) 2015 (b)(6) spoke with (b)(6) at the office who stated that this patient showed her a copy of a recall letter for this product however, when (b)(6) checked it was not for this product or lot number.(b)(6) is not aware of how the patient got the letter.(b)(6) also mentioned as a result of the blistering that the patient received after this product was used on her she was sent to the er.As per (b)(6) , the office prescribed the patient antibiotics to take to help treat the blistering.This is a serious injury (as defined in 21 cfr section 803.3) as the patient reported having an adverse reaction and required intervention to prevent potential permanent harm to a body structure.Because the malfunction allegation could not be confirmed, the cause of the adverse reaction could not be determined.This incident will be reported to maintain compliance with 21 cfr 803 and out of an abundance of caution.
|
(b)(4).Although we have not established that the device caused or contributed to the event, we're reporting it to be compliant with 21 cfr part 803 and out of an abundance of caution.Directions for use indicate rubber dam use is required.The office used inadequate isolation, which is did not prevent product from contacting soft tissue.There was no known device problem, only failure to follow instructions.Has not been returned by dental practice.
|