When to involve an anesthesiologist versus when the oral surgeon can directly administer anesthesia: defining boundaries and best practices

Introduction

Anesthesia delivery in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) occupies a unique position in modern healthcare. Few specialties combine surgical and anesthetic responsibilities within a single practitioner or have achieved comparable office-based efficiency. For decades, oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMS) have safely administered local anesthesia, sedation, and general anesthesia to millions undergoing dentoalveolar and reconstructive procedures through strict adherence to clinical guidelines and a mandatory office anesthesia peer-review process, highlighted in the 2023 Parameter of Care (1).

Escalating systemic comorbidities in the general aging population have increased the complexity of outpatient oral surgery. While office-based procedures continue to safely serve a primarily healthy American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I/II demographic, surgeons are expected to employ rigorous preoperative screening to effectively manage airway risks and safely triage high-risk ASA III/IV patients (2).

These developments renew an important question: where should the boundary be drawn between anesthesia that can be safely directed by oral surgeons and anesthesia that warrants a dedicated anesthesiologist? This discussion is not a debate over professional territory. Rather, it focuses on matching the level of anesthesia expertise and facility resources to the complexity of each patient and procedural risk.

Training pathways and scope of practice

OMFS training includes substantial training in airway management, pharmacology, patient monitoring, and emergency care; OMFS residency training often includes several weeks of dedicated anesthesia training (3). Anesthesiologists’ residency training is devoted entirely to perioperative medicine and critical care, including advanced training in airway management, trauma, cardiac, pediatric, thoracic, obstetric, and neuroanesthesia. These pathways are complementary but not interchangeable; the distinction between OMFS and anesthesiology training is not simply one of technical airway proficiency, but of cumulative exposure to physiologic extremes and medical complexity (Table 1). As patient risk increases, the breadth of experience may provide safety margins that are difficult to replicate in shorter training pathways.

Deep sedation and general anesthesia: distinct definitions along a clinical continuum

One often misunderstood concept in non-operating room anesthesia (NORA) settings is the distinction between deep sedation and general anesthesia. Though often discussed as separate categories, they exist along a continuum; patients may transition from one level to another more readily than intended. According to the ASA, patients receiving deep sedation are not easily aroused but continue to demonstrate a purposeful response to repeated or painful stimulation (4). In contrast, patients under general anesthesia are unarousable, even in response to painful stimuli (4). Though subtle, this difference reflects fundamentally different levels of physiologic control and dependence on the anesthesia provider.

Equally important are the differences in airway management. During deep sedation, the patient’s ability to maintain a patent airway and adequate spontaneous ventilation may become impaired; thus, airway interventions may be required (4). Under general anesthesia, airway protection and ventilatory function are frequently lost, often necessitating active airway control, positive-pressure ventilation, and placement of an advanced airway. The transition from a naturally maintained airway to one that requires active management can occur rapidly and unpredictably, particularly in patients with risk factors including obesity, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and craniofacial abnormalities.

The distinction between deep sedation and general anesthesia is not simply a difference in drug dosage or level of consciousness, but a shift in the likelihood that the provider must assume responsibility for maintaining oxygenation, ventilation, and airway patency. For this reason, the ASA emphasizes that practitioners providing deep sedation must be capable of rescuing patients who inadvertently progress to general anesthesia (5). As patient complexity and airway risk increase, the expertise required to anticipate, recognize, and manage such transitions becomes increasingly important. A dedicated anesthesiologist should be involved based on both the planned sedation depth and the likelihood of needing an advanced airway or physiologic rescue.

Risk stratification as the central principle

Risk stratification should be the foundation of the anesthesia team composition (2). The most appropriate anesthesia model is determined not by the planned anesthetic technique alone, but by the interaction of patient-specific risk factors, procedural complexity, and the resources available to manage complications (Figure 1). Office-based OMS-directed sedation has a strong safety record; the largest contemporary series, comprising 61,237 sedations, reported no deaths and an adverse-event rate of roughly three per 100,000 (6). That record, however, reflects a predominantly low-risk population who underwent “open-airway intravenous anesthesia for ambulatory procedures”. ASA I and II patients accounted for 97.4% of cases, leaving the model’s safety in higher-risk patients largely untested (6). Risk stratification does not dispute the safety of current practice; it identifies the patients for whom safety remains unknown.

Figure 1 Matching anesthesia expertise and care environment to patient and procedural risk. Selection of the anesthesia team should be guided by the interaction of patient-related risk factors, procedural complexity, and available facility resources rather than by any single factor alone (enhanced with an AI tool; see acknowledgement). AI, artificial intelligence; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; ASC, ambulatory surgery center; BMI, body mass index; ECG, electrocardiogram; NIBP, non-invasive blood pressure; OMFS, oral and maxillofacial surgery; OSA, obstructive sleep apnea; SpO₂, peripheral oxygen saturation.

Patient-related factors remain among the most important determinants of risk. Healthy ASA I/II patients with favorable airway anatomy undergoing brief, low-complexity procedures are often appropriate candidates for OMS-directed sedation in properly equipped NORA settings. Patients with significant systemic disease require more careful consideration. Particular attention should be given to recent cardiovascular changes, including new arrhythmias, heart failure, recent ischemia, or poorly controlled hypertension. Similarly, significant pulmonary diseases like OSA, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pulmonary hypertension, or reduced reserve raise perioperative respiratory and cardiovascular risk and may warrant dedicated anesthesiology involvement. OSA warrants particular emphasis, as it raises the odds of a respiratory complication by roughly 70% and more than triples the odds of requiring an airway intervention during sedation (7). A prior survey found that only about a third (34.7%) of OMFS providers routinely screen for OSA using a quantifiable method (8). Other considerations include obesity, difficult airway characteristics, prior difficult intubation, significant aspiration risk, and a personal or family history of malignant hyperthermia or prior anesthesia-related complications. These conditions do not necessarily preclude OMFS-directed sedation but warrant assessment of whether additional anesthesia expertise or hospital resources are needed.

Risk assessment should extend beyond the patient’s factors to include the nature of surgical procedures. Short, minimally invasive procedures with limited physiologic impact can be performed safely without a dedicated anesthesiologist in appropriately selected patients. However, procedural complexity can substantially alter the risk-benefit balance. Longer procedures increase the likelihood of airway events, hemodynamic instability, and delayed recovery. Procedures involving extensive airway sharing, significant bleeding, major fluid shifts, or substantial postoperative pain may require a higher level of anesthetic support.

Certain OMFS procedures deserve special consideration because of their unique physiologic challenges. Operations involving extensive manipulation of trigeminal nerve branches may provoke the trigeminocardiac reflex, resulting in profound bradycardia, hypotension, or even transient asystole. Similarly, surgical stimulation capable of triggering exaggerated vagal responses may produce significant hemodynamic instability. Procedures associated with anticipated difficult airway access, substantial facial swelling, postoperative airway compromise, or significant blood loss further increase anesthetic challenges and may favor the involvement of a dedicated anesthesiologist.

Ultimately, patient and procedure-related risks should not be considered independently. A healthy young patient may safely tolerate a complex procedure, whereas a medically fragile patient may face substantial risk even during a relatively minor intervention. The most dependable risk-stratification models evaluate both dimensions simultaneously. Increasing patient risk or procedural complexity should lower the threshold for anesthesiology consultation, co-management, and performance of the procedure in a hospital setting. The safest approach matches the anticipated physiologic demands with the expertise of the provider and the facility’s resources (Figure 1).

Environment matters: office-based versus hospital-based care

Provider expertise and facility resources are complementary components of patient safety. Accordingly, decisions regarding anesthesia team composition should not be separated from decisions regarding facility selection. Many OMFS procedures are safely performed in NORA settings, including surgical offices, dental clinics, and ambulatory surgery centers. When appropriately designed and staffed, these environments can provide safe and efficient care forselected patients (9). However, maintaining safety requires strict adherence to established monitoring standards, emergency protocols, and patient selection criteria (1).

The ASA Standards for Basic Anesthetic Monitoring require continuous evaluation of oxygenation, ventilation, circulation, and temperature during anesthesia (10), a position mirrored by international standards (11). At a minimum, patients should undergo continuous pulse oximetry, electrocardiographic monitoring, and ventilation assessment, with blood pressure and heart rate documented at least every 5 minutes. Capnography is particularly important during moderate and deep sedation, allowing early detection of hypoventilation, airway obstruction, apnea, and circuit disconnection, often before changes in oxygen saturation become apparent.

Monitoring alone does not ensure safety. Equally important is the ability to respond when abnormalities are detected. Accredited NORA facilities should maintain immediate access to airway rescue equipment, emergency medications, reversal agents, defibrillators, and personnel trained in advanced life support, with regular drills for events such as laryngospasm, anaphylaxis, malignant hyperthermia, and cardiac arrest. Despite these safeguards, outpatient facilities generally lack many of the resources available in hospital settings, including intensive care services, blood products, subspecialty consultants, and multidisciplinary resuscitation teams. Consequently, the question is not merely whether a complication can be recognized, but whether it can be effectively managed if it progresses beyond the capabilities of the procedural setting.

This distinction becomes particularly important for patients with severe systemic disease, difficult airways, significant obesity or OSA, increased aspiration or bleeding risk, or prolonged procedures. In such circumstances, the advantages of a hospital environment may be as important as the expertise of the anesthesia provider. Immediate access to advanced airway equipment, critical care, blood bank resources, and emergency consultation can provide layers of safety not readily available in outpatient settings.

International perspectives

The United Kingdom and the United States have taken markedly different approaches to dental anesthesia. Following a series of anesthesia-related deaths during dental procedures, including pediatric fatalities, the United Kingdom Department of Health-commissioned report “A conscious decision” [2000] led to reforms that effectively restricted dental general anesthesia to hospital-based settings with immediate access to critical care resources (12). The reforms reflected a national determination that higher-risk anesthesia should be delivered in settings with robust rescue capabilities and multidisciplinary support.

In contrast, the United States has maintained a decentralized model governed by state regulations, specialty-specific training pathways, accreditation standards, and professional society guidelines. Office-based and ambulatory sedation remain central to OMFS practice. While this model has facilitated access to care and has generally demonstrated favorable safety outcomes in appropriately selected patients, disagreements persist regarding the management of higher-risk patients and the role of non-anesthesiologist providers in administering deep sedation and general anesthesia (13). Professional organizations generally agree that healthy patients undergoing straightforward procedures under sedation can be managed safely in appropriately equipped outpatient environments; however, differences emerge regarding patients with significant medical comorbidities, difficult airways, severe obesity, OSA, pediatric vulnerability, or procedures associated with increased physiologic stress. The central debate is no longer whether anesthesia can be safely delivered outside the hospital, but rather how patient risk, provider training, monitoring capabilities, and facility resources should be aligned to optimize outcomes.

Japan offers a third approach: a dedicated non-physician anesthesia workforce. Japan recognized dental anesthesiology as one of five dental specialties in 2006 (14,15). Certification has two stages: board certification, after about 3 years of training, and specialist certification, after more than 5 years at an accredited facility and the management of more than 500 anesthesia cases (14,16). Japanese law allows any licensed dentist to administer general anesthesia within the scope of dentistry, though in practice these anesthetics are delivered largely by dental anesthesiologists (14,16). The operating dentist may also administer intravenous sedation when the intended depth of sedation remains within the range of conscious sedation, corresponding to minimal-to-moderate sedation as defined by the ASA. For deep sedation, a qualified anesthesia practitioner dedicated exclusively to patient monitoring and management must be assigned separately from the dentist performing the procedure (16). The evidence base, however, remains concentrated in low-risk care: in a 5-year survey of Japan’s 33 accredited training facilities, 98.1% of 219,343 cases were ASA I or II (14), and the guidelines themselves regard ASA I/II as the appropriate population for dental intravenous sedation (16). South Korea has followed a similar model. Although dental anesthesia services were historically provided by physicians trained in anesthesiology, the field has increasingly developed within dentistry, including the establishment of a dedicated Department of Dental Anesthesia at Pusan National University School of Dentistry in 2004 (17).

The experiences of the United Kingdom, the United States, Japan, and South Korea highlight a common principle: patient safety depends not solely on the professional background of the anesthesia provider, but on the system in which anesthesia care is delivered. Safe anesthesia requires appropriate patient selection, standardized monitoring, emergency preparedness, and reliable rescue capabilities. As patient complexity and procedural risk increase, the threshold for involving a dedicated anesthesiologist and a hospital-based environment should decrease.

Medicolegal considerations

Adverse outcomes associated with sedation and anesthesia in OMFS are commonly analyzed through the traditional elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. These principles become particularly relevant when an anesthesia-related complication occurs in a NORA setting without the involvement of a dedicated anesthesiologist. In such cases, investigators and expert reviewers may examine whether patient-specific risk factors, procedural complexity, and available facility resources were adequately considered during preoperative planning. The central question is often not whether the complication was foreseeable, but whether a reasonably prudent clinician would have anticipated it and taken additional measures, including anesthesiology consultation, selection of a different care environment, or enhanced monitoring and rescue capabilities. Consequently, thorough documentation of the risk assessment process and the rationale underlying provider and facility selection is essential not only for patient safety but also for medicolegal defensibility.

Duty refers to the clinician’s obligation to provide care consistent with accepted standards. In the OMFS setting, this includes appropriate preoperative and airway evaluation, ASA classification, informed consent, monitoring, emergency preparedness, and an appropriate anesthetic plan and setting. When sedation or general anesthesia is administered, the duty also includes the ability to recognize and rescue a patient who progresses to a deeper level of anesthesia than intended. A breach occurs when care falls below the expected standard. In an OMFS anesthesia case, a breach may be alleged if a patient with known high-risk features is managed without appropriate risk stratification, monitoring, staffing, or anesthesiology consultation. The issue at large is not simply whether an oral surgeon is legally permitted to administer anesthesia, but if it is reasonable for them to do so in each specific case called into question. Causation links the alleged breach to the injury. For example, if a patient aspirates during deep sedation or general anesthesia and develops hypoxemia, pneumonitis, or neurologic injury, the legal question becomes whether the event was foreseeable and preventable, and whether failure to recognize aspiration risk, absence of capnography, or timely rescue contributed to it. Damages refer to the harm suffered by the patient, ranging from unplanned hospitalization to hypoxic brain injury, cardiac arrest, or death. Even when a complication is rare, catastrophic damage can intensify scrutiny of the preoperative decision-making process.

Thus, referral to or collaboration with an anesthesiologist should not be viewed as a limitation of OMFS practice. Rather, in higher-risk cases, it may represent a defensible patient-safety decision. Careful documentation of the airway exam, comorbidities, aspiration risk, anesthetic plan, monitoring strategy, available rescue resources, and rationale for either proceeding independently or involving an anesthesiologist is essential. When a serious complication occurs, the most important medicolegal question is often not simply what happened, but whether the risk was recognized, whether the care environment was appropriate, and whether escalation of anesthesia expertise should reasonably have occurred beforehand.

Conclusions

The appropriate boundary between OMFS-directed anesthesia and anesthesiologist involvement should not be determined by professional title or scope of practice alone, but by what best promotes patient safety. It requires weighing patient-specific factors, procedural complexity, provider expertise, and resources within the care environment. OMS are trained to safely provide sedation and anesthesia for many procedures. Importantly, anesthesia safety depends not only on administering anesthetic agents but on the ability to anticipate complications, recognize physiologic deterioration, and rescue patients when unexpected events occur. As patient and procedural risk increase, so does the value of specialized expertise and advanced resources. Ultimately, the goal is not to establish rigid boundaries between OMFS-directed and anesthesiologist-directed care, but to foster a patient-centered approach in which expertise and resources are matched to the physiologic demands of the patient and procedure. This safety-based framework offers the most defensible path forward for delivery of contemporary OMFS anesthesia.

Acknowledgments

The authors used ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA), an artificial intelligence (AI) tool, during the preparation of this manuscript to assist with language editing, improve readability, and enhance the graphical presentation of Figure 1. Figure 1 was initially created by the authors using Microsoft PowerPoint and was subsequently uploaded to ChatGPT solely to improve its graphical presentation without altering the underlying scientific content. The prompt used was: “Enhance the graphical presentation of this figure without altering its content”. All AI-generated suggestions, including language and graphical refinements, were critically reviewed, verified, and revised by the authors as appropriate. The scientific concepts, decision framework, clinical recommendations, and figure content were conceived, developed, and approved entirely by the authors, who take full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the manuscript and the published figure.

Footnote

Provenance and Peer Review: This article was commissioned by the editorial office, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Anesthesia. The article has undergone external peer review.

Peer Review File: Available at https://joma.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/joma-2026-0023/prf

Funding: None.

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://joma.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/joma-2026-0023/coif). A.N. serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Anesthesia from April 2025 to March 2027. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Anesthesia in Outpatient Facilities. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2023;81:E35-50. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Stronczek MJ. Determining the appropriate oral surgery anesthesia modality, setting, and team. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2013;25:357-66, v. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Commission on Dental Accreditation. Accreditation Standards for Advanced Dental Education Programs in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2025. Available online: https://coda.ada.org/standards
4. American Society of Anesthesiologists. Statement on Continuum of Depth of Sedation: Definition of General Anesthesia and Levels of Sedation/Analgesia. 2024 [cited 2026 Jun 9]. Available online: https://www.asahq.org/standards-and-practice-parameters/statement-on-continuum-of-depth-of-sedation-definition-of-general-anesthesia-and-levels-of-sedation-analgesia
5. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Sedation and Analgesia by Non-Anesthesiologists. Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists. Anesthesiology 2002;96:1004-17. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Wiemer SJ, Mediratta JK, Triana RR, et al. What Is the Incidence of Anesthesia-Related Adverse Events in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Offices? A Review of 61,237 Sedation Cases From a Large Private Practice Consortium. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2024;82:895-901. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Ceban F, Abayomi N, Saripella A, et al. Adverse events in patients with obstructive sleep apnea undergoing procedural sedation in ambulatory settings: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med Rev 2025;80:102029. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. Goldberg JM, Silver MI, Johnson MP. Prevalence of Obstructive Sleep Apnea Risk According to the STOP-BANG Questionnaire in an Oral Surgery Office-Based Anesthesia Patient Population. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020;78:2156-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Saxen MA, Urman RD, Yepes JF, et al. Comparison of Anesthesia for Dental/Oral Surgery by Office-based Dentist Anesthesiologists versus Operating Room-based Physician Anesthesiologists. Anesth Prog 2017;64:212-20. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. American Society of Anesthesiologists. Standards for Basic Anesthetic Monitoring. 2025. Available online: https://www.asahq.org/standards-and-practice-parameters/standards-for-basic-anesthetic-monitoring
11. Checketts MR, Alladi R, Ferguson K, et al. Recommendations for standards of monitoring during anaesthesia and recovery 2015: Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland. Anaesthesia 2016;71:85-93. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Pike D. A conscious decision. A review of the use of general anaesthesia and conscious sedation in primary dental care. SAAD Dig 2000;17:13-4. [PubMed]
13. Berman M. Disagreements persist over safety of dental anesthesia. Anesthesiology News. 2020 [cited 2026 Jun 9]. Available online: https://www.anesthesiologynews.com/Policy-and-Management/Article/09-20/Disagreements-Persist-Over-Safety-of-Dental-Anesthesia/59545
14. Sanuki T, Miyawaki T, Iijima T. A survey on the safety of anesthesia management provided by dental anesthesiologists in Japan: a 5-year survey by the Japanese Dental Society of Anesthesiology. Clin Oral Investig 2023;27:5475-83. [Crossref] [PubMed]
15. Ganzberg S. Japanese Dental Society of Anesthesiology Celebrates 50 Years. Anesth Prog 2022;69:40-1.
16. Working Group on Guidelines Development for Intravenous Sedation in Dentistry, the Japanese Dental Society of Anesthesiology. Practice Guidelines for Intravenous Conscious Sedation in Dentistry (Second Edition, 2017). Anesth Prog 2018;65:e1-e18. [Crossref] [PubMed]
17. Yum KW. Dental Anesthesiology in South Korea. Anesth Prog 2007;54:87.