Double versus single cartridge of 4% articaine infiltration into the retro-molar area for lower third molar surgery

BACKGROUND: There are no studies regarding 4% articaine infiltration injection into the retro-molar area for an impacted lower third molar (LITM) surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of infiltration using 1.7 ml (single cartridge: SC) of 4% articaine versus 3.4 ml (double cartridges: DC) of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in LITM surgery. METHOD: This study involved 30 healthy patients with symmetrical LITM. The patients were assigned to receive either a DC or SC of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a local anesthetic for each operation. Onset, duration, profoundness, need for additional anesthetic administration, total volume of anesthetic used, vitality of the tooth, and pain score during operation were recorded. RESULTS: The DC of 4 % articaine had a significantly higher success rate (83.3%) than did the SC (53.3%; P < 0.05). The duration of soft tissue anesthesia was longer in the DC group. The intra-operative pain was higher in the SC group with a significant (P < 0.05) requirement for a supplementary local anesthetic. CONCLUSION: We concluded that using DC for the infiltration injection had a higher success rate, longer duration of anesthesia, less intra-operative pain, and a lower amount of additional anesthesia than SC in the surgical removal of LITM. We recommend that a DC of 4% articaine and a 1:100,000 epinephrine infiltration in the retro-molar region can be an alternative anesthetic for LITM surgery.

Pain measurement in oral and maxillofacial surgery

Regardless of whether it is acute or chronic, the assessment of pain should be simple and practical. Since the intensity of pain is thought to be one of the primary factors that determine its effect on a human's overall function and sense, there are many scales to assess pain. The aim of the current article was to review pain intensity scales that are commonly used in dental and oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS). Previous studies demonstrated that multidimensional scales, such as the McGill Pain Questionnaire, Short form of the McGill Pain Questionnaire, and Wisconsin Brief Pain Questionnaire were suitable for assessing chronic pain, while unidimensional scales, like the Visual Analogue Scales (VAS), Verbal descriptor scale, Verbal rating scale, Numerical rating Scale, Faces Pain Scale, Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBS), and Full Cup Test, were used to evaluate acute pain. The WBS is widely used to assess pain in children and elderly because other scales are often difficult to understand, which could consequently lead to an overestimation of the pain intensity. In dental or OMFS research, the use of the VAS is more common because it is more reliable, valid, sensitive, and appropriate. However, some researchers use NRS to evaluate OMFS pain in adults because this scale is easier to use than VAS and yields relatively similar pain scores. This review only assessed pain scales used for post-operative OMFS or dental pain.