Endodontic sequelae associated with repetitive impacts to the dentofacial region during boxing activities.

AIM: To explore self-reported dentofacial trauma and their potential endodontic sequelae in boxers using a questionnaire, followed by clinical and radiographic assessment to (1) compare the nature and number of self-reported dentofacial injuries with physical evidence of injury sequelae; and (2) investigate potential risk factors influencing dentofacial trauma and their endodontic sequelae. METHODOLOGY: A focus group validated questionnaire was completed by 176 boxers recruited from 16 London boxing clubs; 61 boxers from this cohort then attended a London dental hospital, for a clinical and radiographic assessment. Data from the questionnaire and clinical assessments were then collated and analysed using Chi-squared or t-tests. RESULTS: Questionnaire data revealed 87.5% of boxers reported a history of dentofacial trauma during boxing activity. The clinical and radiographic assessment detected evidence of dentofacial trauma in 91.8% of boxers and dental injury or endodontic-related injury sequelae in 68.9% of boxers. There was a significant association between dentofacial trauma and boxers who did not participate in weekly neck weight sessions (p < .001), and there was a significant association between trauma-related endodontic sequelae and: boxer age (p = .01); competitions per month (p = .002); and defensive skill (p = .007). CONCLUSIONS: A majority of the cohort had suffered dentofacial injuries and endodontic sequelae. The questionnaire data under-reported musculoskeletal injuries and endodontic sequelae, suggesting that some hard-tissue injuries following repetitive dentofacial trauma may have a subclinical presentation. Injury risk may be related to increased boxer age, defensive skills, frequency of participation in competitions, and frequency of neck weight sessions per week.

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.

Immediate dentures: 2. Clinical stages of construction.

UNLABELLED: Immediate dentures remain an important tool for providing patients with an instant replacement option for extracted teeth. The second paper in this series of two aims to cover the clinical and laboratory stages of immediate denture construction. It looks at the clinical techniques that can be used to facilitate the accurate construction of immediate dentures, as well as some of the problems that can compromise their final outcome. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This paper covers the clinical and laboratory stages of immediate denture construction.

Immediate dentures: 1.Treatment planning.

UNLABELLED: The treatment planning, clinical stages and construction of immediate dentures pose challenges to both dentist, dental technician and patient. In this two-part series, the various principles for successfully providing patients with immediate dentures will be discussed. This first paper examines the advantages and disadvantages, as well as the treatment planning involved in providing immediate dentures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although the provision of immediate dentures is common in dental practice, it is a treatment option which is not without problems. This article will show how careful planning, prior to treatment starting, can prevent unforeseen complications occurring.

Inflammatory external root resorption following surgical treatment for intra-bony defects: a report of two cases involving Emdogain and a review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Enamel matrix-derived proteins have been shown to regenerate periodontal tissues lost as a result of disease in humans. Emdogain, a commercial preparation of porcine enamel matrix derivative (EMD), has been shown to induce new cementum, periodontal ligament and bone formation in human periodontal defects. Although a number of studies have reported successful outcomes, local adverse effects have so far not been reported in the literature. This case report describes two examples of external inflammatory resorption following surgical root surface debridement and the use of Emdogain. TREATMENT: The treatment in both cases involved raising a full-thickness flap following completion of non-surgical therapy. The granulation tissue from the defect was removed and the root surfaces debrided. Emdogain was applied following the manufacturers' instructions and involved conditioning the root surfaces with Pref-Gel and applying the Emdogain to the defect. The flaps were sutured and the site reviewed regularly. Radiographs were taken before the treatment was undertaken and also at 6 months to assess the healing of the defect. RESULTS: External inflammatory root resorption was observed on the treated teeth 6-24 months after therapy. CONCLUSION: External inflammatory root resorption may be an unusual adverse event following Emdogain treatment.

Resin-retained bridges re-visited. Part 2. Clinical considerations.

Resin-retained bridges have been used clinically since the 1970s, and offer a more conservative approach to the restoration of edentulous spaces than conventional bridgework. They are easy to place, cheap to fabricate and have been shown to be cost-effective. Despite this, they are not frequently used in general dental practice and they have an undeserved reputation for failure. Since their initial introduction, they have undergone a number of changes to their method of retention, and the materials used in their construction. This has resulted in a predictable, aesthetic restoration which, barring the use of implants, is often the treatment of choice where teeth adjacent to an edentulous space are minimally or not restored. This article hopes to show the clinical techniques required to produce predictable resin-retained bridgework in general practice.

Case report: orthodontic separators as periodontal ligatures in periodontal bone loss.

Periodontal destruction due to subgingival elastic bands was first reported in the dental literature nearly 130 years ago, and has involved over 20 cases. Destruction due to orthodontic separators used during fixed appliance therapy is a less common occurrence. A case report is presented which illustrates the severe periodontal destruction, which can occur when separators are misused. The subsequent treatment of this problem is also described. Emphasis is placed on the correct use of these orthodontic adjuncts and, appropriate monitoring of the gingival health of orthodontic patients.

Resin-retained bridges re-visited. Part 1. History and indications.

Resin-retained bridges have been used clinically since the 1970s, and offer a more conservative approach to the restoration of edentulous spaces than conventional bridgework. They are easy to place, cheap to fabricate and have been shown to be cost effective. Despite this, they are not frequently used in general dental practice and they have an undeserved reputation for failure. Since their initial introduction, they have undergone a number of changes to their method of retention, and the materials used in their construction. This has resulted in a predictable, aesthetic restoration which, barring the use of implants, is often the treatment of choice where teeth adjacent to an edentulous space are minimally or not restored. This first article details the history, advantages, indications, and designs of resin-retained bridges.