Management of specific medical emergencies in dental practice.

In this paper, the actions needed to manage specific medical emergencies are discussed. Each emergency requires a correct diagnosis to be made for effective and safe management. The basis of management in contemporary dental practice avoids the intravenous route where drugs are required to treat the emergency.

Is the degree of facial swelling after dental extraction sufficient to justify the current delays to radiotherapy mask production? A pilot evaluation of postextraction swelling using 3D photography.

BACKGROUND: Concern that facial swelling after dental extractions will spoil the fit of radiotherapy masks in head and neck cancer patients leads to the current practice of delay making of mask production (and therefore the start of radiotherapy) for several days or longer. However, there is little data on how extensive facial swelling is after dental extraction. AIM: To assess the degree of facial swelling in a group of adult patients attending Newcastle Dental School for routine dental extractions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen dental extraction patients underwent three-dimensional photography using the 3dMDFace® system at 1-week preop, immediately preop, and at 48-h postop. We recorded demographic data, teeth extracted, and methods. Facial volume change was assessed using 3dMD Vultus® software. Two reviewers ran the data through the 3dMD Vultus® software independently. We used Student's t-test to assess significance. RESULTS: Twelve patients were included in the final analysis. There was no significant difference in the difference between the two preoperative measurements and the preoperative versus postoperative difference (Wilcoxon signed-rank test: Reviewer 1: p = .31. and Reviewer 2: p = .10). Thus, mean facial swelling was less than the threshold for significant swelling which was deemed to be 15 cm3 . CONCLUSION: Facial swelling following dental extraction may not be sufficient in itself to justify the current delays in mask production and subsequent delivery of radiotherapy. Further definitive studies are needed to optimize how dental extractions should be timed within head and neck cancer care pathways.

Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Pain during dental treatment, which is a common fear of patients, can be controlled successfully by local anaesthetic. Several different local anaesthetic formulations and techniques are available to dentists. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objectives were to compare the success of anaesthesia, the speed of onset and duration of anaesthesia, and systemic and local adverse effects amongst different local anaesthetic formulations for dental anaesthesia. We define success of anaesthesia as absence of pain during a dental procedure, or a negative response to electric pulp testing or other simulated scenario tests. We define dental anaesthesia as anaesthesia given at the time of any dental intervention.Our secondary objective was to report on patients' experience of the procedures carried out. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (OVID SP), Embase, CINAHL PLUS, WEB OF SCIENCE, and other resources up to 31 January 2018. Other resources included trial registries, handsearched journals, conference proceedings, bibliographies/reference lists, and unpublished research. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing different formulations of local anaesthetic used for clinical procedures or simulated scenarios. Studies could apply a parallel or cross-over design. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological approaches for data collection and analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 123 studies (19,223 participants) in the review. We pooled data from 68 studies (6615 participants) for meta-analysis, yielding 23 comparisons of local anaesthetic and 57 outcomes with 14 different formulations. Only 10 outcomes from eight comparisons involved clinical testing.We assessed the included studies as having low risk of bias in most domains. Seventy-three studies had at least one domain with unclear risk of bias. Fifteen studies had at least one domain with high risk of bias due to inadequate sequence generation, allocation concealment, masking of local anaesthetic cartridges for administrators or outcome assessors, or participant dropout or exclusion.We reported results for the eight most important comparisons.Success of anaesthesiaWhen the success of anaesthesia in posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring root canal treatment is tested, 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine, may be superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (31% with 2% lidocaine vs 49% with 4% articaine; risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 2.32; 4 parallel studies; 203 participants; low-quality evidence).When the success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures and surgical procedures/periodontal treatment, respectively, was tested, 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin (66% with 3% prilocaine vs 76% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; 2 parallel studies; 907 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and 4% prilocaine plain (71% with 4% prilocaine vs 83% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; 2 parallel studies; 228 participants; low-quality evidence) were inferior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine.Comparative effects of 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine on success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures are uncertain (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.02; 3 parallel studies; 930 participants; very low-quality evidence).Comparative effects of 0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.83; 2 cross-over studies; 37 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.07 to 5.12; 2 cross-over studies; 31 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction are uncertain.Comparative effects of 2% mepivacaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 3.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 23.82; 1 parallel and 1 cross-over study; 110 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.25 to 5.45; 2 parallel studies; 68 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction and teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring endodontic access and instrumentation, respectively, are uncertain.For remaining outcomes, assessing success of dental local anaesthesia via meta-analyses was not possible.Onset and duration of anaesthesiaFor comparisons assessing onset and duration, no clinical studies met our outcome definitions.Adverse effects (continuous pain measured on 170-mm Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (VAS))Differences in post-injection pain between 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine are small, as measured on a VAS (mean difference (MD) 4.74 mm, 95% CI -1.98 to 11.46 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 314 interventions; moderate-quality evidence). Lidocaine probably resulted in slightly less post-injection pain than articaine (MD 6.41 mm, 95% CI 1.01 to 11.80 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 309 interventions; moderate-quality evidence) on the same VAS.For remaining comparisons assessing local and systemic adverse effects, meta-analyses were not possible. Other adverse effects were rare and minor.Patients' experiencePatients' experience of procedures was not assessed owing to lack of data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For success (absence of pain), low-quality evidence suggests that 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine for root treating of posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis, and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 4% prilocaine plain when surgical procedures/periodontal treatment was provided. Moderate-quality evidence shows that 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin when surgical procedures were performed.Adverse events were rare. Moderate-quality evidence shows no difference in pain on injection when 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine were compared, although lidocaine resulted in slightly less pain following injection.Many outcomes tested our primary objectives in simulated scenarios, although clinical alternatives may not be possible.Further studies are needed to increase the strength of the evidence. These studies should be clearly reported, have low risk of bias with adequate sample size, and provide data in a format that will allow meta-analysis. Once assessed, results of the 34 'Studies awaiting classification (full text unavailable)' may alter the conclusions of the review.

Determination of the mental foramen position in dental radiographs in 18-30 year olds.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the radiographic position and reliability of assessing mental foramen (MF) position in relation to premolar crowns in an 18- to 30-year-old UK-based population. METHODS: Following ethical approval and a power calculation, the position of the MF was recorded in relation to premolar crowns and apices in 100 dental panoramic tomographs. Positions were assessed by three senior clinicians independently, then by consensus. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, χ(2) and Fleiss' and Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: Reliability data showed only fair to moderate agreement on independent scoring. Substantial to almost perfect agreement was achieved by consensus, demonstrating the most common position for the MF to be between the first and second premolar teeth when using both premolar crowns (51%) and apices (76%) as reference points. There was a significant difference in the position of the foramen between the left and right sides (p < 0.05), with only 62% of cases showing symmetry. CONCLUSIONS: The most common position for the MF is between the first and second premolar teeth; however, anatomical variation is seen. Use of pre-operative radiographs to relate the position of the MF to premolar crowns may not be reliable.

Haemostasis. Part 2: Medications that affect haemostasis.

Post-operative haemorrhage is a recognized complication in dental practice. This may be more prevalent in patients taking antithrombotic medications. It is important that the dentist understands the mechanism of action of these drugs and how they may affect management of dental patients. Clinical Relevance: Dental professionals must be aware of those medications affecting haemostasis and how they may impact on management. The emergence of different therapeutic regimens has increased the number of such drugs.

Haemostasis. Part 1: The management of post-extraction haemorrhage.

UNLABELLED: The management of bleeding complications following a dental extraction is an essential skill for the dental practitioner. Extractions are often carried out on patients with complex medical histories and a long list of medications. This paper aims to help the clinician manage post-extraction haemorrhage. A review of the management of patients on anti-thrombotic medications will be covered in a subsequent paper. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This article reviews the management of haemorrhage following tooth extraction; from the risk assessment of any underlying medical conditions and medications, to the clinical techniques used to control bleeding following an extraction.

Use of Pre-Injection Diffusion of Local Anaesthetic as a Means of Reducing Needle Penetration Discomfort.

AIM: To determine if pre-injection diffusion of local anaesthetic solution influences the discomfort of needle penetration in the palate. METHODS: A placebo-controlled, randomised, double-blind split-mouth investigation was conducted. 25 healthy adult volunteers were recruited and each received two needle penetrations in a random order during one visit. The penetration sites were 1 cm from the gingival margin of the first maxillary premolars on each side of the mouth. 30 gauge-13 mm needles which were attached to syringes that contained either 2% lidocaine with 0.125mg/ml epinephrine or physiological saline were used. For each penetration an operator encouraged a drop of solution to appear at the end of the needle and placed this drop with the bevel of the needle flat on the palate for 20 seconds. The discomfort was noted on a 100 mm visual analogue scale with end points marked "No pain" and "Unbearable pain". RESULTS: There was no significant difference in penetration discomfort between solutions, (mean VAS = 26.80±19.36mm for lidocaine and 26.20±18.39mm for saline) however the 2nd penetration was significantly more uncomfortable than the first (mean VAS = 31.00±19.84 mm and 22.00±16.65 mm respectively). CONCLUSION: Pre-injection diffusion of local anaesthetic solution did not influence the discomfort of needle penetration in the palate.

Is mandibular molar buccal infiltration a mental and incisive nerve block? A randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacies of buccal local anesthetic infiltrations at various sites of the mandible in order to elucidate the mechanism of action of articaine mandibular infiltrations. METHODS: After a power calculation and ethical approval, 22 volunteers received 1.8 mL 4% articaine hydrochloride with 1:100,000 adrenaline as a buccal infiltration at the canine, first, or second molar in a randomized, double-blind, crossover design. The injections at the canine and first molar were considered equidistant from the mental foramen. Responses of the first and second molars, first premolar, and lateral and central incisors were assessed using an electronic pulp tester over a 47-minute period. Volunteers were asked to rate the discomfort of each injection using a visual analog scale. Data were analyzed using repeated measures analysis, McNemar, and Mann-Whitney U testing. RESULTS: Injections at the canine and first molar teeth produced anesthesia in all teeth tested in some volunteers. There was no significant difference between anesthetic success of the first premolar after infiltration at the canine or the first molar. Injection at the second molar failed to produce anesthesia of the incisor teeth. Anesthesia was significantly more likely after injections at an adjacent site. There was no difference in discomfort associated with injections at different sites of the mandible. CONCLUSIONS: Articaine first mandibular molar infiltrations achieve an effect via a combination of modified mental and incisive nerve block and local infiltration. Infiltration at the second molar produces anesthesia of both molar and premolar teeth, primarily via infiltration.

Articaine (4%) with epinephrine (1:100,000 or 1:200,000) in intraosseous injections in symptomatic irreversible pulpitis of mandibular molars: anesthetic efficacy and cardiovascular effects.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the cardiovascular effects and the anesthetic efficacy of intraosseous injections of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (EPI100) or 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine (EPI200). STUDY DESIGN: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, 0.9 mL EPI100 and EPI200 solutions were administered for endodontic treatment of mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in 60 patients. The anesthetic success and pain during anesthesia were evaluated by visual analog scale. The cardiovascular parameters evaluated were heart rate, diastolic/systolic blood pressure, pulse oximetry, and electrocardiogram changes. RESULTS: Both solutions provided high anesthetic efficacy (96.8% and 93.1% for EPI100 and EPI200, respectively; P > .05), and the cardiovascular parameters showed minimal incidences of significant differences throughout the clinical procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The epinephrine concentration did not affect the efficacy of 4% articaine, and both solutions produced a high success level of pulpal anesthesia. Intraosseous delivery by slow speed of injection did not induce significant clinical changes in cardiovascular parameters.

Avaliação do desconforto palatal após diferentes técnicas de infiltração vestibular de articaína na maxila / Evaluation of palatal discomfort after different techniques of buccal infiltration of articaine in the maxilla

Objetivo: Comparar o efeito anestésico da infiltração vestibular maxilar (IVM) e do bloqueio do nervo alveolar superior posterior (BNASP) usando articaína 4% com adrenalina 1:100.000 no desconforto na mucosa palatal averiguado pelo teste pin-prick. Método: Neste estudo randomizado, duplo-cego e cruzado foram selecionados 30 voluntários saudáveis os quais foram submetidos a duas diferentes técnicas anestésicas no vestíbulo da maxila (IVM e BNASP) usando articaína 4% com adrenalina 1:100.000. As injeções foram administradas pelo mesmo operador em duas sessões distintas com intervalo de uma semana entre elas. A anestesia dos tecidos moles do palato foi avaliada pelo teste pin-pick com uma agulha 30G por um operador cego para o tipo de injeção. O desconforto da picada de agulha foi avaliado em quatro momentos utilizando uma escala visual analógica (EVA) de 100 mm. Os dados da EVA foram categorizados como: nenhuma dor a dor leve (0-30 mm) e dor moderada a grave (maior que 30 mm). Os dados foram analisados pelo teste Qui-quadrado e os resultados foram estatisticamente significativos quando p menor que 0,05. Resultados: Apesar de ambas as técnicas puderem insensibilizar o palato, a técnica IVM é menos funcional que a técnica BNASP na insensibilização palatal, não atingindo os mesmos objetivos num mesmo intervalo de tempo. O bloqueio do nervo alveolar superior posterior se mostrou mais efetivo na insensibilização do palato aos 5 minutos (p menor que 0,001) enquanto não houve diferença estatisticamente significante aos 10 minutos (p = 0,87). Conclusões: O BNASP com articaína 4% e adrenalina 1:100.000 foi mais eficaz que o IVM na redução do desconforto pin-prick do tecido mole do palato, aos cinco minutos pós-injeção. Ambas as técnicas foram igualmente eficazes em dez minutos.

Objective: To compare the effect of maxillary buccal infiltration (BI) and posterior superior alveolar nerve block (PSANB) using 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine on pin-prick discomfort on palatal mucosa. Methods: Thirty healthy subjects participated in this double-blind cross-over study. Each subject received two different maxillary buccal anesthetic techniques with 4% articaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine, namely BI and PSANB. Injections were given by the same operator in different sessions with 1-week interval between them. Anesthesia of palatal soft tissue was assessed by the pin-pick test with a 30G needle by an operator blinded to the type of injection. Discomfort of pin-prick was assessed at four time points using a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Data from the VAS were categorized as none to mild pain (0-30 mm) and moderate to severe pain (greater than 30 mm). Data were analyzed by Chi-square test and the results were statistically significant when p less than 0.05. Results: Although both techniques could numb the palate, the BI technique appeared less functional that the PSANB technique, not reaching the same goals in the same time interval. PSANB was more effective in stunning the palate at 5 minutes (p less than 0.001) while there was no statistically significant difference between the techniques at 10 minutes (p = 0.87). Conclusions: PSANB with 4% articaine and 1:100,000 epinephrine was more effective than BI in reducing pin-prick discomfort of palatal soft tissue at 5 minutes post-injection. Both techniques were equally effective at 10 minutes.

A prospective randomized trial of different supplementary local anesthetic techniques after failure of inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular teeth.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of supplementary repeat inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% lidocaine and epinephrine, buccal infiltration with 4% articaine with epinephrine, intraligamentary injection, or intraosseous injection (both with 2% lidocaine with epinephrine) after failed inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for securing pain-free treatment in patients experiencing irreversible pulpitis in mandibular permanent teeth. METHODS: This randomized clinical trial included 182 patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular teeth. Patients received 2.0 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine as an IANB injection. Patients who did not experience pain-free treatment received randomly 1 of 4 supplementary techniques, namely repeat lidocaine IANB (rIANB), articaine buccal infiltration (ABI), lidocaine intraligamentary injection (PDL), or lidocaine intraosseous injection (IO). Successful pulp anesthesia was considered to have occurred when no response was obtained to the maximum stimulation (80 reading) of the pulp tester, at which time treatment commenced. Treatment was regarded as being successfully completed when it was associated with no pain. Data were analyzed by χ(2) and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: Of the 182 patients, 122 achieved successful pulpal anesthesia within 10 minutes after initial IANB injection; 82 experienced pain-free treatment. ABI and IO allowed more successful (pain-free) treatment (84% and 68%, respectively) than rIANB or PDL supplementary techniques (32% and 48%, respectively); this was statistically significant (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: IANB injection alone does not always allow pain-free treatment for mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis. Supplementary buccal infiltration with 4% articaine with epinephrine and intraosseous injection with 2% lidocaine with epinephrine are more likely to allow pain-free treatment than intraligamentary and repeat IANB injections with 2% lidocaine with epinephrine for patients experiencing irreversible pulpitis in mandibular permanent teeth.

A comparison of the efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine in achieving pulpal anesthesia in maxillary teeth with irreversible pulpitis.

INTRODUCTION: To assess the efficacy of buccal infiltrations of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine in achieving anesthesia in maxillary teeth with irreversible pulpitis. METHODS: This randomized double-blind clinical trial included 100 patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis in maxillary teeth. Patients received 2.0 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine in the buccal sulcus adjacent to the tooth with pulpitis. Before and every 2 minutes up to a maximum of 10 minutes after injection, the response of the test tooth was assessed using an electronic pulp tester. Successful pulp anesthesia was considered to have occurred when no response was obtained to the maximum stimulation (80 reading) of the pulp tester during the test period, at which time treatment commenced. Treatment was regarded as being successfully completed when it was associated with no pain. The time to onset of successful pulp anesthesia was recorded for each test tooth. Injection discomfort was recorded on standard 100-mm visual analog scales (VASs). Data were analyzed by the Chi-square and Student t tests. RESULTS: Fifty patients received articaine and 50 received lidocaine. Seventy-three of the 100 patients achieved pulpal anesthesia within 10 minutes of injection: 38 after articaine and 35 after lidocaine (P = .5). The onset of pulpal anesthesia after articaine and lidocaine buccal infiltrations was similar (mean and standard deviations: 4.9 ± 2.7 minutes vs 5.1 ± 2.4 minutes, respectively; t = 0.2; P = .82). Pain-free treatment was completed in 33 patients after articaine and 29 after lidocaine buccal infiltrations (P = .63). Although articaine buccal injection was significantly more comfortable than lidocaine buccal injection (t = 2.3, P = .026), both were associated with mild discomfort on VAS (means ± standard deviation: 10.8 mm ± 11.7 mm vs 17.5 mm ± 17.6 mm, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in efficacy between 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine in achieving anesthesia in maxillary teeth with irreversible pulpitis after buccal infiltration.

The use of the mandibular infiltration anesthetic technique in adults.

BACKGROUND: The author describes the use of the infiltration anesthetic technique to anesthetize mandibular teeth in adults and explores its mechanism of action. METHODS: The author reviewed articles describing randomized controlled trials of the mandibular infiltration anesthetic technique in healthy participants. RESULTS: The author found that using the mandibular infiltration anesthetic technique can produce anesthesia in adult mandibular teeth. The success was dose dependent and the choice of anesthetic solution was significant; 4 percent articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was more effective than 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Combining buccal and lingual infiltrations increased success in the mandibular incisor region. The success of the mechanism of infiltration of anesthetic at the mandibular first molar appeared to depend on the mental foramen. CONCLUSIONS: The mandibular infiltration anesthetic technique is an effective method of anesthetizing mandibular incisors. Four percent articaine with epinephrine appears to be the preferred solution. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The choice of anesthetic solution is important when using the infiltration anesthetic technique in the adult mandible.

The Oral Health Impact Profile: ranking of items for temporomandibular disorders.

The study aimed to rank the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-49) items by relevance to temporomandibular disorders (TMD). A modified version of the OHIP-49 was completed by 110 patients with TMD and by age- and gender-matched TMD-free individuals. Patients were diagnosed using the Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC) for TMD. The modified OHIP included a reference to the 'jaw' and a 1-month reference period. The difference in item prevalence for problems reported fairly/very often (FOVO) between the two groups was calculated for each OHIP item. The FOVO prevalence differences were ranked to reveal the most relevant problems for TMD. Patients' total OHIP scores were higher (60.6, SD = 31.6) than those of controls (17.1, SD = 18.1). Patients scored higher on all items, with 41 items showing a statistically significant difference between the patient score and the control score. The patient-control difference in FOVO item prevalence varied considerably between different items, ranging from 1 to 67%. Substantial differences were noted between patients and controls for a number of specific items, including those relating to pain and physical impact. Smaller differences across most items were also noted, even those not expected to have an impact. The OHIP provides a starting point for a measure of TMD treatment outcome, once items less attributable to TMD are excluded.

Articaine and lignocaine.

DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central, Medline, Embase, and ProQuest Health and Medical Complete, the metaRegister of the controlled trials database and a leading manufacturer. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials in patients requiring non-complex routine dental treatments comparing 4% articaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) with 2% lignocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) for maxillary and mandibular infiltrations and block anaesthesia were included. The principal outcome measures were anaesthetic success, onset of action, post-injection adverse events or post-injection pain. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Following data abstraction a meta-analysis was performed using random-effects model. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in a meta-analysis. Articaine is more likely than lignocaine to achieve an anaesthetic success in the posterior first molar area, with a relative risk for success of 1.31 (95% CI 1.12-1.54, P=0.0009). There is no difference in post-injection adverse events between articaine and lignocaine with a relative risk of 1.05 (95% CI 0.66-1.65, P=0.85). However, articaine injection results in a higher pain score as measured by Visual Analogue Scale than lignocaine at the injection site, after anaesthetic reversal, with a weighted mean difference of 6.49 (95% CI 0.02-12.96, P=0.05) decreasing to 1.10 (95% CI 0.18-2.02, P=0.02) on the third day after injection. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review provide support for the argument that articaine is more effective than lignocaine in providing anaesthetic success in the first molar region for routine dental procedures. In addition, both drugs appear to have similar adverse effect profiles. The clinical impact of articaine's higher post-injection pain scores than lignocaine is negligible. Hence, articaine is a superior anaesthetic to lignocaine for use in routine dental procedures. Use in children under 4 years of age is not recommended, since no data exist to support such usage.

A comparison of the anterior middle superior alveolar nerve block and infraorbital nerve block for anesthesia of maxillary anterior teeth.

BACKGROUND: The authors conducted a study to compare the efficacy of the anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) nerve block with that of the infra-orbital nerve block (IONB) in achieving pulpal anesthesia in the anterior maxilla. METHODS: Twenty-eight healthy adult volunteers received 1.0 milliliter of 2 percent lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine as an AMSA nerve block or IONB via computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery (CCLAD) across two visits. The authors used electronic pulp testing to measure pulpal anesthesia. Participants provided subjective reports of lip numbness and injection discomfort. The authors analyzed the data by using the McNemar, Mann-Whitney and t tests. RESULTS: Anesthetic success, defined as two or more consecutive episodes of no sensation in response to maximal stimulation, was significantly greater with the AMSA nerve block than with the IONB in central (P = .012) and lateral (P < .001) incisors; however, anesthesia was achieved in only 42.9 percent of central incisors with the AMSA nerve block. The authors observed a significantly greater number of episodes of no response in the premolar and canine teeth after IONB. Onset of anesthesia was shorter after IONB in canines (P = .002) and central incisors (P = .022). The incidence of subjective lip numbness was 100 percent after IONB and 14.3 percent after AMSA nerve block (P < .001), with numbness lasting twice as long after IONB (P = .019). The authors noted no significant difference in injection discomfort between the two techniques (P = .768). CONCLUSIONS: The IONB produced anesthetic success in canine and premolar teeth, with a more rapid onset than that for the AMSA nerve block. Although the AMSA technique was significantly more successful than IONB in attaining incisor anesthesia, it was ineffective for central incisors, as assessed according to rigorous electronic pulp testing. The IONB and AMSA nerve block produced similar levels of injection discomfort.

Infiltration anesthesia in the mandible.

Infiltration is preferred to regional block techniques in the maxilla as the former offers a number of advantages. This paper considers the evidence for the efficacy of infiltration anesthesia in the mandible in the adult dentition, both as a primary and as a supplemental method.

Pharmacology and the elderly.

UNLABELLED: This paper describes the impact of ageing on an individual's ability to process drugs. It considers adverse drug reactions in the elderly and discusses prescribing for the older dental patient. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Many older dental patients will be suffering from medical conditions or taking prescribed or non-prescribed drugs. These can influence the impact of drugs prescribed by dentists.

Effect of time on clinical efficacy of topical anesthesia.

The objective of this study was to determine the effect of time on the clinical efficacy of topical anesthetic in reducing pain from needle insertion alone as well as injection of anesthetic. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, split-mouth, clinical trial which enrolled 90 subjects, equally divided into 3 groups based upon time (2, 5, or 10 minutes) of topical anesthetic (5% lidocaine) application. Each group was further subdivided into 2: needle insertion only in the palate or needle insertion with deposition of anesthetic (0.5 mL 3% mepivacaine plain). Each subject received drug on one side and placebo on the other. Subjects recorded pain on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). The results showed that for needle insertion only, 5% lidocaine reduced pain as determined by a significant difference in mean VAS after 2 minutes (20.1 mm, P < .002), 5 minutes (15.7 mm, P < .022), and 10 minutes (13.7 mm, P < .04), as analyzed by paired t tests. For needle insertion plus injection of local anesthetic, a significant difference in mean VAS was noted only after 10 minutes (14.9 mm, P < .031), yet pain scores for both topical anesthetic and placebo were elevated at this time point resulting in no reduction in actual pain. Time of application did not result in a significant difference in effect for either needle insertion only or needle insertion plus injection of local anesthetic, as analyzed by 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). In conclusion, topical anesthetic reduces pain of needle insertion if left on palatal mucosa for 2, 5, or 10 minutes, but has no clinical pain relief for anesthetic injection.

Local anaesthesia: risks and controversies.

UNLABELLED: This paper describes the complications that can occur as the result of the intra-oral injection of local anaesthetics. It considers important localized and systemic complications and describes strategies to limit the occurrence of such problems. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Local anaesthetics are routinely administered during many dental procedures. An understanding of the risks involved in these injections is important.