Effect of Back-Pressure Anesthesia on Postoperative Pain after the Endodontic Treatment in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The present study evaluated the effect of 2 different back pressure-based supplemental anesthesia on postoperative pain in patients receiving endodontic treatment for a mandibular molar with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. METHODS: One-hundred-thirty-five adult patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpits in a mandibular first or second molar, received an initial inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) injection with 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine. Ten minutes following the injection, access to cavity preparation began. Lip numbness was a must for all patients. The Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (HP-VAS) was used to measure pain during endodontic therapy. Success of primary injections was defined as no or mild pain (less than 55 mm on HP-VAS) during access preparation. The patients with initial successful anesthesia served as control and received endodontic treatment. Ninety-five patients with unsuccessful primary anesthesia randomly received either intraligamentary injections of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine or intrapulpal injections with similar anesthetic solution. Endodontic treatment was re-initiated and canals were instrumented till working length under copious irrigation. Intracanal medicament of calcium hydroxide was placed and teeth received a temporary restoration. Postoperative pain was measured at 2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours, 24 hours, and 3 days. Data were analyzed using the Pearson chi-square test, one-way analysis of variance, and one-way repeated measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: The initial initial inferior alveolar nerve block was successful in 40 cases (out of 135). The intraligamentary injections were successful in 33 out of 47 cases (70%), and intrapulpal injections were successful in all cases (45/45). The patients receiving intraligamentary injections reported significantly higher pain scores at all intervals till 24 hours. After 3 days, the pain significantly reduced in all the groups with no significant difference between them. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving supplementary intraligamentary injections can experience increased postoperative pain till 24 hours after the endodontic treatment. The pain scores reduced to the level of the control group after 3 days.

Effect of preoperative ibuprofen in controlling postendodontic pain with and without low-level laser therapy in single visit endodontics: A randomized clinical study.

AIM: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of low-level laser irradiation and ibuprofen in reducing the onset and severity of postoperative pain following single visit endodontics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty patients were recruited for this study. Group A (n = 30) patients were administered 400 mg of ibuprofen orally 1 h before the institution of an endodontic procedure. Group B (n = 30) patients were given irradiation of a low-level laser at 50 Hz for 3 min after the standard endodontic procedure at the periapical region on both buccal and lingual aspect. Group C (n = 30) patients were given preoperative ibuprofen followed with a low-level laser at 50 Hz for 3 min after endodontic treatment. Group D (n = 30) patients were administered no preoperative ibuprofen nor low-level laser irradiation after the endodontic procedure. The patient immediately recorded his/her pain perception on the Heft Parker pain survey after completion of the appointment and at 4, 8, 12, 24, and 48 h postoperatively. Inter group analysis was carried out using the analysis of variances with "least significant difference" post hoc test. For intra group analysis, Student's t-test was used. Chi-square test was applied for nonparametric data. RESULTS: Pain was significantly reduced in all the treatment groups postoperatively. Ibuprofen showed significant pain reduction at 4 h and 8 h period. The combination of low-level laser and ibuprofen showed the best results in terms of postoperative pain reduction. CONCLUSION: This study proved that low-level laser therapy can be an effective alternative for conventional use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in controlling postendodontic pain thereby eliminating the adverse effects of such drugs on the patients.

Effect of diode laser and ultrasonics with and without ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid on smear layer removal from the root canals: A scanning electron microscope study.

AIM: To evaluate the effect of diode laser and ultrasonics with and without ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) on the smear layer removal from root canals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 120 mandibular premolars were decoronated to working the length of 12 mm and prepared with protaper rotary files up to size F3. Group A canals irrigated with 1 ml of 3% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) followed by 3 ml of 3% NaOCl. Group B canals irrigated with 1 ml of 17% EDTA followed by 3 ml of 3% NaOCl. Group C canals lased with a diode laser. Group D canals were initially irrigated with 0.8 ml of 17% EDTA the remaining 0.2 ml was used to fill the root canals, and diode laser application was done. Group E canals were irrigated with 1 ml distilled water with passive ultrasonic activation, followed by 3 ml of 3% NaOCl. Group F canals were irrigated with 1 ml EDTA with passive ultrasonic activation, followed by 3 ml of 3% NaOCl. Scanning electron microscope examination of canals was done for remaining smear layer at coronal middle and apical third levels. RESULTS: Ultrasonics with EDTA had the least smear layer scores. CONCLUSION: Diode laser alone performed significantly better than ultrasonics.

Comparison of dermatoses seen in community health camps and a tertiary care centre in Kashmir.

BACKGROUND: Various environmental, socio-economic and geographical factors influence the pattern of dermatoses in an area. Observations made at tertiary dermatology centres may not reflect the actual pattern of dermatoses at the community level. AIMS: To evaluate the pattern of dermatoses at community level and compare it with that at a tertiary centre. METHODS: Cases were registered through community visits in block Hazratbal in Kashmir valley, once a week over a calendar year. The pattern of dermatoses observed was compared with that seen at the tertiary centre over the same period. RESULTS: A total of 1065 community cases, with 1105 dermatoses, were compared with 4358 patients with 4466 dermatoses seen at the tertiary centre. Non-infectious dermatoses in each group were more common than infectious dermatoses (34.08% infectious dermatoses versus 65.97% non-infectious in community cases and 29.42% infectious dermatoses versus 70.58% non-infectious in hospital patients). Infectious cases were seen significantly more in the community (34.08%) than at the tertiary centre (29.42%). Among the infectious diseases, fungal infection was the most common and in the non-infectious group, pigmentary disorders were the most common, followed by acne and eczema. CONCLUSION: Infectious dermatoses were found statistically significantly more in community cases as compared to hospital patients while the opposite was the case with non-infectious dermatoses. The study emphasizes the need for providing frequent dermatology services to the community at the primary healthcare level so that the burden of dermatoses, especially infectious, may be reduced. Also, wider studies should be conducted in different regions in order to assess the actual magnitude of dermatological illnesses in the community.