Comparative efficiency of the preoperative pterygomandibular space injection of two doses of dexamethasone in mandibular third molar surgery

Background@#Impacted mandibular third molar removal is one of the most commonly performed oral surgical procedures. This procedure can lead to several postoperative complications, such as trismus, facial swelling, and pain, which occur as a result of the inflammatory responses to surgery. This study compared the efficiency of preoperative injections of 4 mg versus 8 mg dexamethasone into the pterygomandibular space to reduce postoperative sequelae. @*Methods@#This was a randomized, prospective, split-mouth, controlled study, including 52 mandibular third molar surgeries in 26 patients. Each patient was randomized to either the 4 mg or 8 mg dexamethasone injection group. Dexamethasone was injected into the pterygomandibular space after numbness from local anesthesia.Data were collected for trismus, facial swelling, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and the number of analgesics taken during the evaluation period. The level of significance was set at P 0.05). @*Conclusion@#Compared to the 4 mg preoperative dexamethasone injection, the 8 mg preoperative dexamethasone injection into the pterygomandibular space was more effective in reducing postoperative swelling and pain following the surgical removal of the impacted mandibular third molar. However, the difference in trismus could not be evaluated clinically. Therefore, the recommendation of administering the 4 mg dexamethasone preoperative injection is optimal in the third molar surgical procedure.

Review of dexamethasone administration for management of complications in postoperative third molar surgery

Dexamethasone has been used in oral and maxillofacial surgery for postoperative pain, swelling, and trismus following third molar surgeries. It is a potent and powerful drug that can alleviate the aforementioned postoperative sequelae. Dexamethasone is responsible for inhibiting the release of inflammatory mediators in the inflammation process to improve patient quality of life after surgical intervention. There are several available routes of administering dexamethasone. This article will help determine the suggested routes of administration, dosage, parameters, and dexamethasone timing for third molar surgeries.

Effectiveness of dexamethasone injection in the pterygomandibular space before and after lower third molar surgery

Background@#Previous studies have investigated the effects of dexamethasone injections into the pterygomandibular space and compared them to those of controls; however, the effects of dexamethasone injections before and after lower third molar surgery on postoperative complications have not been studied. This research investigated the postoperative sequelae of dexamethasone injections before and after surgery into the pterygomandibular space. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of preoperative and postoperative injections of 4 mg of dexamethasone into the pterygomandibular space on postoperative pain, facial swelling, and the restriction of mouth opening following lower third molar surgical removal. @*Methods@#Twenty-seven participants with bilateral symmetrical lower impacted third molars were included in this study. Each participant was randomly allocated to one of two groups. Group A received injections of 1 ml dexamethasone (4 mg/mL) and 1 mL placebo into the pterygomandibular space before and after surgery, respectively. Group B received the same doses of placebo before surgery and dexamethasone after surgery. @*Results@#A significant restriction of mouth opening on the second postoperative day was observed in both groups. Nonetheless, the postoperative restriction of mouth opening, facial swelling, postoperative pain, and analgesic consumption after lower third molar surgical removal were not significantly different in the two groups. @*Conclusions@#Regardless of the time of administration, dexamethasone injections into the pterygomandibular space resulted in satisfactory control of the postoperative sequelae of the mandibular third molar surgical removal.

The anesthetic efficiency of retromolar infiltrations with two local anesthetic solutions of the same concentration in lower third molar surgery

Background@#Mandibular third molar removal is the most common surgical procedure encountered in oral and maxillofacial clinics. It also presents the greatest challenges and controversies for surgeons when surgical removal is considered. Furthermore, diverse anesthesia results and success rates are achieved after using the same concentrations of different solutions or the same amounts of local anesthetics. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficiency of using double-cartridge (3.4 ml) 4% lidocaine (high concentration) and 4% articaine with a 1:100000 epinephrine infiltration in the retromolar region for impacted lower third molar surgery. @*Methods@#This double-blind study included 30 patients with symmetrically impacted lower third molars. The patients were randomly selected to receive 4% articaine on one side and 4% lidocaine on the other, as a local anesthetic for third molar surgery. The onset, duration of soft-tissue numbness, pulpal sensitivity, amount of additional local anesthetic needed, pain score during the surgical procedure, and duration of the operation were recorded. @*Results@#The results of this research indicate that 86.7% of the operations in the 4% articaine group and 83.3% of those in the 4% lidocaine group were successful. Furthermore, the outcomes in both groups were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Numbness onset occurred faster in the articaine group than it did in the lidocaine group. However, the duration of soft-tissue anesthesia and pain scores recorded immediately postoperatively were similar. @*Conclusion@#It is concluded that 4% lidocaine and 4% articaine had a similar infiltration efficacy in the retromolar region and both local anesthetics are adequate for impacted lower third molar surgery. There were no statistically significant differences between the two local anesthetics regarding pain control and the duration of soft-tissue numbness during the procedure.

Single buccal infiltration of high concentration lignocaine versus articaine in maxillary third molar surgery

Background@#This research evaluated the numbness produced by lignocaine at an equal or higher concentration than that of 4% articaine through a single point of injection for maxillary third molar surgery. This randomized double-blind study was conducted to compare the anesthetic efficiency of 4% lignocaine with that of 4% articaine in impacted maxillary third molar surgery using a single buccal infiltration alone. @*Methods@#The study participants were 30 healthy patients requiring the bilateral surgical removal of symmetrically-positioned maxillary third molars. Using a split-mouth design, each patient randomly received buccal infiltration of 1.7 ml of 4% lignocaine and 1.7 ml of 4% articaine during two separate appointments. After 15 minutes of anesthetic injection, surgery was performed by the same surgeon using a consistent technique on both sides. Pinprick test pain scores of the buccal and palatal gingiva of the maxillary third molar after 10 minutes and 15 minutes latencies, pain scores during the surgery, the need for supplemental anesthesia, and patients’ satisfaction with anesthetic efficiency were recorded. Surgery performed without supplemental anesthesia was categorized as successful. @*Results@#The success rates of 4% lignocaine and 4% articaine (83.34% vs. 86.67%, P = 1.00) were not significantly different. Only 5 cases (4 cases in the articaine group and 1 case in the lignocaine group) reported mild pain and pressure sensation (NRS ≤ 1) on probing at the palatal side after 15 minutes of latency (P = 0.25). The pain scores of maxillary third molar surgery in the two groups were not significantly different (P > 0.05).Moreover, the statistical analysis confirmed the comparable patient satisfaction of two study groups (P = 0.284). @*Conclusion@#This study provides evidence that single buccal infiltrations of 4% lignocaine and 4% articaine have comparable anesthetic efficacy and success rates for impacted maxillary third molar surgery. Both 4% lignocaine and 4% articaine can produce effective palatal anesthesia and pain control using buccal infiltration alone after 15 minutes of latency.

The efficiency of topical anesthetics as antimicrobial agents: A review of use in dentistry

Topical anesthetics are commonly used in oral & maxillofacial surgery to control pain in the oral cavity mucosa before local anesthetic injection. These anesthetic agents come in many forms, developed for different usages, to minimize adverse reactions, and for optimal anesthetic efficiency. Earlier studies have revealed that these agents may also limit the growth of microorganisms in the area of anesthetic application. Many topical anesthetic agents show different levels of antimicrobial activity against various bacterial strains and Candida. The dosage of local anesthetic agent used in some clinical preparations is too low to show a significant effect on microbial activity. Efficiency of antimicrobial activity depends on the local anesthetic agent's properties of diffusion within the bloodstream and binding efficiency with cytoplasmic membrane, which is followed by disruption of the bacterial cell membrane. The antimicrobial properties of these agents may extend their usage in patients to both control pain and infection. To develop the topical local anesthetic optimal usage and antimicrobial effect, a collaborating antiseptic agent may be used to benefit the local anesthetic. However, more research is required regarding minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of topical local anesthetic agents with drug interaction between anesthetics and antiseptic agents.

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.

The efficacy of dexamethasone injection on postoperative pain in lower third molar surgery

BACKGROUND: Surgery on the lower impacted third molar usually involves trauma in the highly vascularized loose connective tissue area, leading to inflammatory sequelae including postoperative pain, swelling, and general oral dysfunction during the immediate post-operative phase. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of preoperative injection of a single dose of 8 mg dexamethasone for postoperative pain control in lower third molar surgery. METHODS: A controlled, randomized, split-mouth, prospective study involving lower third molar surgery was performed in 31 patients. The randomized sampling group was preoperatively injected, after local anesthesia, with a single dose of dexamethasone (8 mg in 2 ml) through the pterygomandibular space; 2 ml of normal saline (with no dexamethasone) was injected as a placebo. RESULTS: The pain VAS score was significantly different on the day of the operation compared to the first post-operative day (P = 0.00 and 0.01, respectively), but it was not significantly different on the third and seventh postoperative day between the control and study groups. There was a significant reduction in swelling on the second postoperative day, and a difference between the second postoperative day and baseline value in the study group (P < 0.05). Trismus was highly significantly different on the second postoperative day and between baseline and second postoperative day between the groups (P = 0.04 and 0.02, respectively). Descriptive statistics and independent-samples t- test were used to assess the significance of differences. CONCLUSIONS: Injection of 8 mg dexamethasone into the pterygomandibular space effectively reduced the postoperative pain and other postoperative sequalae.

The efficacy of dexamethasone injection on postoperative pain in lower third molar surgery

BACKGROUND: Surgery on the lower impacted third molar usually involves trauma in the highly vascularized loose connective tissue area, leading to inflammatory sequelae including postoperative pain, swelling, and general oral dysfunction during the immediate post-operative phase. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of preoperative injection of a single dose of 8 mg dexamethasone for postoperative pain control in lower third molar surgery. METHODS: A controlled, randomized, split-mouth, prospective study involving lower third molar surgery was performed in 31 patients. The randomized sampling group was preoperatively injected, after local anesthesia, with a single dose of dexamethasone (8 mg in 2 ml) through the pterygomandibular space; 2 ml of normal saline (with no dexamethasone) was injected as a placebo. RESULTS: The pain VAS score was significantly different on the day of the operation compared to the first post-operative day (P = 0.00 and 0.01, respectively), but it was not significantly different on the third and seventh postoperative day between the control and study groups. There was a significant reduction in swelling on the second postoperative day, and a difference between the second postoperative day and baseline value in the study group (P < 0.05). Trismus was highly significantly different on the second postoperative day and between baseline and second postoperative day between the groups (P = 0.04 and 0.02, respectively). Descriptive statistics and independent-samples t- test were used to assess the significance of differences. CONCLUSIONS: Injection of 8 mg dexamethasone into the pterygomandibular space effectively reduced the postoperative pain and other postoperative sequalae.