Scleroderma: oral, maxillofacial and radiographic manifestations for dental practitioners.

Scleroderma is an autoimmune condition of unknown aetiology with a range of manifestations, which can be limited to the skin or can extend to be multisystemic. It is characterised by fibrosis, microangiopathy and dysregulation of the immune system and commonly affects the oral cavity. Frequent oral and maxillofacial features include fibrosis of the face, circumoral furrows and reduced oral aperture. Radiographic findings are often incidental, including uniform, asymptomatic periodontal ligament space widening of teeth and osteolysis of bone at muscular attachments. The oral and maxillofacial manifestations significantly contribute to its disease burden and are often overlooked and undertreated as their treatment can be limited due to their challenging rheumatological care. Given the complexity of the condition and its multisystemic impacts, better co-operation between dentists and rheumatologists may help improve this patient cohort's quality of life. This clinical article aims to better equip dentists to identify features of scleroderma and manage the day-to-day oro-facial manifestations.

Patient safety in dentistry - the bigger picture.

Background Patient safety incidents (PSIs) have recently become a topic of discussion within dentistry. NHS England data has highlighted that wrong tooth extraction is the most common surgical Never Event (NE); however, this data reflects mainly a secondary care picture. Consideration needs to be given to reporting of PSIs occurring in primary care.Aims To establish the current attitudes of both primary and secondary care dentists within this field and to use this to promote a positive, supportive culture.Methods A national electronic survey was sent to dentists for data capture related to this topic, from April to September 2019 inclusively.Results There were 104 responses to the survey. Responses included that 39% of responders were general dental practitioners (GDPs), 90% were aware of NEs, 48% were not aware of how to report PSIs and 74% of dentists felt that fear of the General Dental Council/Care Quality Commission repercussions was a barrier to them reporting PSIs. Additionally, 86% of dentists felt that a trainee/GDP support network would be useful to share learning regarding PSIs.Conclusion The survey results highlighted that there is a lack of knowledge concerning PSI reporting, combined with a culture of fear of the repercussions of reporting. The survey data will aim to be used to implement a supportive network for dentists, develop a positive ethos surrounding PSIs and optimise patient care.

Dentistry and aviation engineering - behind the scenes at operations in a UK-based airline.

The healthcare industry is commonly compared to the aviation industry with emphasis on human factors and the decision-making processes undertaken by pilots and clinicians alike. The authors have been given exclusive access to meet the head of the maintenance team behind one of the UK's most popular airlines. An open-ended interview took place which was audio-transcribed for thematic analysis. Data were initially coded to identify basic patterns in the transcript. Once this was completed, themes were identified and agreed between the authors which could be compared to healthcare and dentistry. These themes were: regulation, occupational health, maintenance of equipment, use of checklists, reporting, just culture, burnout and disturbances.The aviation engineering industry requires the combination of a skilled workforce working under time pressure often in a financially restricted environment in a similar way to healthcare, especially dentistry. The two industries share common risks, although introduction of risk management tools such as checklists have been prevalent in aviation since the 1930s. Recognition of said risks and themes can lead to shared learning opportunities to benefit both sectors.

Developing a Patient Safety Culture in Primary Dental Care.

Patient safety should be at the heart of any healthcare service. Systems, teams, individuals and environments must work in tandem to strive for safety and quality. Research into patient safety in dentistry is still in the early stages. The vast majority of the research in this area has originated from the secondary care and academic fields. Approximately 95% of dental care is provided in the primary care sector. In this paper, we provide an overview of the evidence base for patient safety in dentistry and discuss the following aspects of patient safety: human factors; best practice; the second victim concept; potential for over-regulation and creating a patient safety culture. Through discussion of these concepts, we hope to provide the reader with the necessary tools to develop a patient safety culture in their practice.

The impact of wrong-site surgery on dental undergraduate teaching: a survey of UK dental schools.

INTRODUCTION: Patient safety within dental education is paramount. Wrong-site surgery (WSS) tooth extraction is not uncommon and is a significant never event (NE) in dentistry. This study aimed to explore dental schools' undergraduate experience of NEs, safety interventions implemented and the impact on student experience. METHODS: All 16 UK dental schools were surveyed via email. RESULTS: The response rate was 100%. A modified World Health Organization (WHO) checklist was used within institutions (94%) including pre-operative briefings and recording teeth on whiteboards (81%, respectively). Students were directly supervised performing extractions (63%) utilising a 1:4 staff: student ratio. WSS by students was reported in 69% of schools, with student experience being impacted by an increased patient safety focus. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrated an increased utilisation of an adapted WHO checklist. Modification of practices to ensure patient safety was demonstrated at all schools, irrespective of student WSS occurrences. Institutions experiencing student NEs commonly implemented WHO checklists and recording teeth for extraction on whiteboards. Other strategies included direct staff supervision and pre-operative briefings. CONCLUSION: UK dental schools have increased the emphasis on patient safety by the implementation of national healthcare models, for example WHO checklists and pre-operative briefings. These strategies both aim to improve communication and teamwork. Increased levels of staff supervision foster greater quality of teaching; however, this has resulted in reduced student clinical experience. A proposed minimum standard for undergraduate surgery is suggested to ensure safe and competent dental practitioners of the future.

Surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth.

BACKGROUND: Pathology relating to mandibular wisdom teeth is a frequent presentation to oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth is a common operation. The indications for surgical removal of these teeth are alleviation of local pain, swelling and trismus, and also the prevention of spread of infection that may occasionally threaten life. Surgery is commonly associated with short-term postoperative pain, swelling and trismus. Less frequently, infection, dry socket (alveolar osteitis) and trigeminal nerve injuries may occur. This review focuses on the optimal methods in order to improve patient experience and minimise postoperative morbidity. OBJECTIVES: To compare the relative benefits and risks of different techniques for surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 8 July 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library; 2019, Issue 6), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 July 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 July 2019). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing different surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors were involved in assessing the relevance of identified studies, evaluated the risk of bias in included studies and extracted data. We used risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data in parallel-group trials (or Peto odds ratios if the event rate was low), odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data in cross-over or split-mouth studies, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data. We took into account the pairing of the split-mouth studies in our analyses, and combined parallel-group and split-mouth studies using the generic inverse-variance method. We used the fixed-effect model for three studies or fewer, and random-effects model for more than three studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 62 trials with 4643 participants. Several of the trials excluded individuals who were not in excellent health. We assessed 33 of the studies (53%) as being at high risk of bias and 29 as unclear. We report results for our primary outcomes below. Comparisons of different suturing techniques and of drain versus no drain did not report any of our primary outcomes. No studies provided useable data for any of our primary outcomes in relation to coronectomy. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether envelope or triangular flap designs led to more alveolar osteitis (OR 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 1.23; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), wound infection (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.06; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), or permanent altered tongue sensation (Peto OR 4.48, 95% CI 0.07 to 286.49; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). In terms of other adverse effects, two studies reported wound dehiscence at up to 30 days after surgery, but found no difference in risk between interventions. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the use of a lingual retractor affected the risk of permanent altered sensation compared to not using one (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). None of our other primary outcomes were reported by studies included in this comparison. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether lingual split with chisel is better than a surgical hand-piece for bone removal in terms of wound infection (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Alveolar osteitis, permanent altered sensation, and other adverse effects were not reported. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is any difference in alveolar osteitis according to irrigation method (mechanical versus manual: RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.09; 1 study) or irrigation volume (high versus low; RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.02; 1 study), or whether there is any difference in postoperative infection according to irrigation method (mechanical versus manual: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.43; 1 study) or irrigation volume (low versus high; RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.37; 1 study) (all very low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report permanent altered sensation and adverse effects. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether primary or secondary wound closure led to more alveolar osteitis (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.40; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), wound infection (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 96.34; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), or adverse effects (bleeding) (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.47; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report permanent sensation changes. Placing platelet rich plasma (PRP) or platelet rich fibrin (PRF) in sockets may reduce the incidence of alveolar osteitis (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.67; 2 studies), but the evidence is of low certainty. Our other primary outcomes were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this 2020 update, we added 27 new studies to the original 35 in the 2014 review. Unfortunately, even with the addition of these studies, we have been unable to draw many meaningful conclusions. The small number of trials evaluating each comparison and reporting our primary outcomes, along with methodological biases in the included trials, means that the body of evidence for each of the nine comparisons evaluated is of low or very low certainty. Participant populations in the trials may not be representative of the general population, or even the population undergoing third molar surgery. Many trials excluded individuals who were not in good health, and several excluded those with active infection or who had deep impactions of their third molars. Consequently, we are unable to make firm recommendations to surgeons to inform their techniques for removal of mandibular third molars. The evidence is uncertain, though we note that there is some limited evidence that placing PRP or PRF in sockets may reduce the incidence of dry socket. The evidence provided in this review may be used as a guide for surgeons when selecting and refining their surgical techniques. Ongoing studies may allow us to provide more definitive conclusions in the future.

#Wisdomteeth: an analysis of 100 social media posts and a survey on patient perception.

Background The use of social media to broadcast healthcare-related communications continues to increase in popularity, with dentistry being no exception. Method We have analysed, in real-time over a period of six months, 100 posts on the social media platform Instagram which have used the hashtag '#wisdomteeth'.Results Fifty-one posts were posted by dentists/professional accounts. Sixty-four percent depicted removal of third molars and 12% included images related to third molar eruption or surgery for entertainment purposes. Eight percent featured advice related to complications of retaining third molars. Forty-nine posts collected were posted by patients or members of the public. Fifty-nine percent consisted of images showing patients recovering from third molar removal under a form of sedation and 21% with no indication of sedation being used. Four percent showed patients prior to third molar removal surgery. Imagery inferred for entertainment purposes made up 8%. In our patient survey, 68% of those asked claimed they used social media; however, only 32% had viewed oral surgery-related images on these platforms. The most popular site to view such images was Instagram. Of the ten patients who viewed such images, five had a positive reaction, while two had a negative reaction and three had a neutral reaction.Conclusions Our analysis shows multiple posts of invasive surgery without an advisory warning, which may be unsettling for viewers. There seems to be little regard for patient confidentiality with no mention of consent. Posts from patients mainly focus on the recovery from sedation with honest references to pain, swelling and altered sensation. This all plays a role in the public perception of third molar surgery and can impact on the way that the public views the profession.

Patient-reported experience and outcome measures in oral surgery: a dental hospital experience.

Introduction Patient-reported experience and outcome measures (PREMs and PROMs) are useful tools in assessing the quality of a service and the care it provides. We present our findings from the collection and analysis of PREMs and PROMs at the Royal London Dental Hospital Oral Surgery Department and discuss implications for future practice.Methods PREMs questionnaires exploring peri-operative aspects of care were distributed to patients having dental extractions under local anaesthetic. Patients were later invited to complete a PROMs questionnaire to gather information about their post-operative experience.Results One hundred and fifty-five PREMs questionnaires were completed. Over 98% of patients reported that they felt involved in their treatment, their pain and anxiety was well managed, they received information in a suitable language, and they felt able to ask questions. Eighty-seven (56%) patients subsequently completed the PROMs questionnaire. Twelve (14%) reported that they required assistance following treatment and two (2%) required further surgery. Sixty-three (72%) patients reported that they achieved normal function/appearance within two weeks.Conclusion The majority of patients reported a positive experience throughout their patient journey. We conclude that PREMs and PROMs may be used for benchmarking and managing service provision. There is scope for developing comprehensive measures for use in dental settings.

Attitudes of dental undergraduate students towards patient safety in a UK dental school.

OBJECTIVES: Patient safety is an important issue in health care. In the United Kingdom, wrong site tooth extraction contributes to a significant proportion of adverse or harmful events, coined "never events." Therefore, patient safety within the field of dentistry is of paramount importance. This novel study aims to explore the teaching of patient safety to undergraduate dental students and their current attitudes to the subject. METHODS: Focus groups were held at Barts' and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, QMUL in 2018 to ascertain the views and opinions of thirteen third-year dental undergraduate students. RESULTS: Thematic analysis was performed on verbatim transcripts. Key themes were highlighted. All students could provide a complete definition of patient safety and of "never events," with examples. There was a strong emphasis upon awareness of one's own competence and the need for effective communication to maintain patient safety. Small group teaching and the requirement for standardization of teaching were encouraged. The challenge of incorporation of the patient safety concept into the clinical routine without causing repetition during teaching was highlighted. CONCLUSION: The results show a positive attitude towards the concept and the teaching of patient safety. All students understood patient safety concepts and techniques used to prevent adverse or harmful events. This study proves that teaching on the subject was thought to be of value. It is crucial that the teaching of patient safety is introduced and built upon within the early years of dental undergraduate training so that its practice becomes second nature.

Prevention and Management of Post-Operative Pain in Oral Surgery.

Post-operative pain is an area of oral surgery that concerns both patients and practitioners. Adequate management of pain and anxiety in oral surgery is an essential component of any oral surgery service. In this paper, we explore the science behind pain and the drugs available to manage post-operative pain. Discussion is focussed on the analgesics available on the dental practitioners' formulary and the evidence base supporting their use. We explore the beneficial and adverse effects of these analgesics. We also discuss recent controversies relating to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids. Based on the evidence available, we have developed a protocol to assist practitioners when advising and prescribing analgesics for their patients.

An unusual case of disappearing bone disease in the mandible and literature review.

Disappearing bone disease is a rare disorder that causes spontaneous and progressive osteolysis and proliferation of lymphatic tissue and blood vessels. It is debilitating and there is evidence of mortality in reported cases including those affecting mandible. A 38-year-old man was diagnosed with disappearing bone disease of the mandible in 2013. This had progressed from being in the right ramus only, and now extends to the lower right first molar and affects the left coronoid process and ramus. Mandibular involvement has shown to be high-risk. In older patients, misdiagnosis can occur without thorough investigation, and education of clinicians needs to be paramount to provide the appropriate treatment for this rare condition. The disease can be debilitating and as such education and support of patients is essential.

Systematic review of patient safety interventions in dentistry.

BACKGROUND: The concept of patient safety in dentistry is in its infancy, with little knowledge about the effectiveness of tools or interventions developed to improve patient safety or to minimise the occurrence of adverse events. METHODS: The aim of this qualitative systematic review was to search the academic and grey literature to identify and assess tools or interventions used in dental care settings to maintain or improve patient safety. All study designs were included from all dental care settings. Outcome measures were: patient safety, harm prevention, risk minimization, patient satisfaction and patient acceptability, professional acceptability, efficacy, cost-effectiveness and efficiency. Quality assessments were performed on the included studies based on CASP tools. Further analysis was undertaken to discover whether any of the tools had been trialled or verified by the authors, or by subsequent authors. RESULTS: Following abstract screening, and initial qualitative synthesis, nine studies were found to meet the inclusion criteria with 31 being excluded following initial analysis. Tools identified included: checklists (4 studies), reporting systems (3), the use of electronic notes (1) and trigger tools (1). Grey literature searching did not identify any further appropriate studies. In terms of study design, there were observational studies including audit cycles (5 studies), epidemiological studies (3) and prospective cluster randomised clinical trials (1). The quality of the studies varied and none of their outcomes were verified by other researchers. The tools identified have the potential to be used for measuring and improving patient safety in dentistry, with two surgical safety checklists demonstrating a reduction in erroneous dental extractions to nil following their introduction. Reporting systems provide epidemiological data, however, it is not known whether they lead to any improvement in patient safety. The one study on trigger tools demonstrates a 50 % positive predictive value for safety incidents. It is not clear as to what impact the introduction of electronic guidelines has on patient safety outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review finds that the only interventions in dentistry that reduce or minimise adverse events are surgical safety checklists. We believe this to be the first systematic review in this field; it demonstrates the need for further research into patient safety in dentistry across several domains: epidemiological, conceptual understanding and patient and practitioner involvement.

Case Report: Fractured Needle in the Pterygomandibular Space Following Administration of an Inferior Dental Nerve Block.

Fortunately, needle fracture is a rare complication following the administration of dental local anaesthetic. We present a case of needle fracture following administration of an inferior dental nerve block. The fractured needle was retrieved successfully under general anaesthetic. We also provide some suggestions on how to prevent needle fracture, and advice on how to manage the situation should it arise. Clinical Relevance: Dental practitioners are the largest user group of local anaesthesia in the UK. It is important that practitioners are aware of the risks to the patient of needle fracture, how to minimize the risk of this occurring and be aware of how to manage the situation should it arise.

Domestic violence education for UK and Ireland undergraduate dental students: a five-year perspective.

The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to ascertain whether undergraduate dental students in the United Kingdom and Ireland are receiving formal teaching on recognizing and managing domestic violence (DV) as part of their curricula. A questionnaire was sent to all dental schools in the UK and Ireland in 2007 and again in 2012, requesting information on whether the subject was taught, by which specialty it was taught, and whether schools felt it was important to include in the curriculum. In 2007, twelve of the fifteen dental schools completed and returned the questionnaire, for a response rate of 80 percent; in 2012, eleven of the sixteen dental schools responded, for a response rate of 69 percent. The main findings were that, in 2007, 50 percent of the responding schools were providing teaching about DV and the majority of this teaching was delivered by oral surgery and pediatric dentistry departments. In 2012, only 45 percent of the responding schools were teaching DV, with 60 percent of this teaching being delivered by pediatric dentists. This study's findings suggest that DV is an undertaught area in UK and Irish undergraduate dental curricula. Some schools recognized the importance of DV teaching; however, they have been unable to implement it because of a full curriculum and lack of appropriately trained staff amongst other reasons.

Surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth.

BACKGROUND: The surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth is one of the most common operations undertaken in oral and maxillofacial surgery. The most common indication for surgery is infection about a partially erupted tooth that is impacted against bone or soft tissues. Other indications include unrestorable caries, pulpal and periapical pathology, fracture of the tooth and cyst development, amongst others. Most commonly the benefits of surgical removal of a wisdom tooth include alleviation of the symptoms and signs of pericoronitis and its potential consequences. However, surgery is frequently associated with postoperative pain, swelling and trismus. Less commonly complications include infection, including dry socket, trigeminal nerve injuries and rarely fracture of the mandible. OBJECTIVES: To compare the relative benefits and risks of different techniques for undertaking various aspects or stages of the surgical extraction of mandibular wisdom teeth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 21 March 2014), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to 21 March 2014) and EMBASE (OVID) (1980 to 21 March 2014). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the electronic searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing surgical techniques for removal of mandibular wisdom teeth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors conducted assessment of relevance, risk of bias and data extraction. Study authors were contacted for additional information. RRs were used for dichotomous data and MDs for continuous data, unless the event rate was very low and Peto ORs were used. The pairing of the split-mouth studies was taken into account in the analysis for both dichotomous and continuous outcomes, and parallel group and split-mouth studies were combined using the generic inverse variance method. Random-effects models were used provided there were more than three studies (fixed-effect models otherwise). MAIN RESULTS: A total of 35 trials (2569 patients) were included. The interventions under consideration fell into seven broad categories, with many comparisons including only a small number of trials. Twenty-one of the trials were assessed at high risk of bias, the remaining 14 as unclear. The results are described in the summary of findings tables.Triangular flaps were associated with a 71% reduction in alveolar osteitis at one week (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.78; three trials, moderate quality) and reduction in pain at 24 hours (MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.10; two trials, moderate quality) compared with envelope flaps. There was no evidence of a difference in overall infection rates, in maximum mouth opening or in permanent sensation. However, there was some evidence that residual swelling after one week was slightly increased in the triangular flap groups compared to envelope flap types (MD 0.66 mm, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.07; two trials, low quality). We found no data on temporary sensation, or adverse events.There was low quality evidence from two studies, looking at the use of a retractor during third molar surgery, to indicate more cases of temporary altered sensation (up to one month) when a retractor was used (Peto OR 5.19, 95% CI 1.38 to 19.49; two trials, low quality). One study reported that this did not persist for more than six months in either group. We found no data for use of a retractor on other primary outcomes or adverse effects (including fracture of the mandible).Due to the small number of studies, the different comparisons evaluated, the variable outcomes reported and the paucity of useful data for all primary outcomes we were not able to draw any conclusions concerning bone removal in third molar surgery.There was insufficient evidence from single studies of very low quality on irrigation method (manual versus mechanical) or irrigation volume (low or high) to determine whether there were differences or not for the outcomes of alveolar osteitis or postoperative infection. We found no data for any of the other primary outcomes.There was insufficient evidence (low to very low quality) that any wound closure technique (primary versus secondary) was superior to another for the outcomes of alveolar osteitis, postoperative infection or maximum mouth opening achieved after seven days, or reactionary bleeding. There was evidence that secondary wound closure was associated with reduced pain at 24 hours (MD 0.79, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.24; four trials, moderate quality) and slightly reduced swelling after one week (MD 0.33, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.57; seven trials, moderate quality).We found no data on other primary outcomes.There was some evidence that the use of a surgical drain was associated with less postoperative swelling (MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.62 to -0.19; five trials, moderate quality) and greater maximum mouth opening one week after surgery (MD 3.72 mm, 95% CI 2.84 to 4.59; two trials, moderate quality). There was insufficient evidence from a single study (low quality) to determine whether the presence of a drain made any difference to pain at 24 hours postoperation. There were no data for the other primary outcomes.Although two RCTs compared coronectomy with complete extraction, flaws in the design and the unit of analysis of these studies meant that there were no reliable data available for inclusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The thirty-five included trials looked at a range of different surgical techniques. The comparisons related to seven broad aspects of the surgical procedures for impacted mandibular third molars: type of surgical flap raised, use of retractors, techniques for bone removal, wound irrigation, wound closure, wound drainage, and complete/incomplete tooth removal. The quality of the body of evidence for each of these comparisons was very low to moderate due to the small number of trials and patients, and the majority of the trials being at high risk of bias (65%) with the remainder at unclear risk of bias.The evidence for making changes to surgical practice is therefore limited. However, it is useful to describe the state of the research evidence supporting practice so that surgeons can make an informed choice in adopting new techniques, or continuing with established techniques.

Interventions for iatrogenic inferior alveolar and lingual nerve injury.

BACKGROUND: Iatrogenic injury of the inferior alveolar or lingual nerve or both is a known complication of oral and maxillofacial surgery procedures. Injury to these two branches of the mandibular division of the trigeminal nerve may result in altered sensation associated with the ipsilateral lower lip or tongue or both and may include anaesthesia, paraesthesia, dysaesthesia, hyperalgesia, allodynia, hypoaesthesia and hyperaesthesia. Injury to the lingual nerve may also affect taste perception on the affected side of the tongue. The vast majority (approximately 90%) of these injuries are temporary in nature and resolve within eight weeks. However, if the injury persists beyond six months it is deemed to be permanent. Surgical, medical and psychological techniques have been used as a treatment for such injuries, though at present there is no consensus on the preferred intervention, or the timing of the intervention. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of different interventions and timings of interventions to treat iatrogenic injury of the inferior alveolar or lingual nerves. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trial Register (to 9 October 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 9 October 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 9 October 2013). No language restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving interventions to treat patients with neurosensory defect of the inferior alveolar or lingual nerve or both as a sequela of iatrogenic injury. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We performed data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We contacted authors to clarify the inclusion criteria of the studies. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies assessed as at high risk of bias, reporting data from 26 analysed participants were included in this review. The age range of participants was from 17 to 55 years. Both trials investigated the effectiveness of low-level laser treatment compared to placebo laser therapy on inferior alveolar sensory deficit as a result of iatrogenic injury.Patient-reported altered sensation was partially reported in one study and fully reported in another. Following treatment with laser therapy, there was some evidence of an improvement in the subjective assessment of neurosensory deficit in the lip and chin areas compared to placebo, though the estimates were imprecise: a difference in mean change in neurosensory deficit of the chin of 8.40 cm (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.67 to 13.13) and a difference in mean change in neurosensory deficit of the lip of 21.79 cm (95% CI 5.29 to 38.29). The overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was very low; the outcome data were fully reported in one small study of 13 patients, with differential drop-out in the control group, and patients suffered only partial loss of sensation. No studies reported on the effects of the intervention on the remaining primary outcomes of pain, difficulty eating or speaking or taste. No studies reported on quality of life or adverse events.The overall quality of the evidence was very low as a result of limitations in the conduct and reporting of the studies, indirectness of the evidence and the imprecision of the results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is clearly a need for randomised controlled clinical trials to investigate the effectiveness of surgical, medical and psychological interventions for iatrogenic inferior alveolar and lingual nerve injuries. Primary outcomes of this research should include: patient-focused morbidity measures including altered sensation and pain, pain, quantitative sensory testing and the effects of delayed treatment.

Ibuprofen and/or paracetamol (acetaminophen) for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth.

BACKGROUND: Both paracetamol and ibuprofen are commonly used analgesics for the relief of pain following the surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth (third molars). In 2010, a novel analgesic (marketed as Nuromol) containing both paracetamol and ibuprofen in the same tablet was launched in the United Kingdom, this drug has shown promising results to date and we have chosen to also compare the combined drug with the single drugs using this model. In this review we investigated the optimal doses of both paracetamol and ibuprofen via comparison of both and via comparison with the novel combined drug. We have taken into account the side effect profile of the study drugs. This review will help oral surgeons to decide on which analgesic to prescribe following wisdom tooth removal. OBJECTIVES: To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of paracetamol, ibuprofen and the novel combination of both in a single tablet for pain relief following the surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth, at different doses and administered postoperatively. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group'sTrials Register (to 20 May 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 4); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 20 May 2013); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 20 May 2013) and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (to 20 May 2013). We checked the bibliographies of relevant clinical trials and review articles for further studies. We wrote to authors of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and searched personal references in an attempt to identify unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restriction was applied to the searches of the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled double-blinded clinical trials were included. Cross-over studies were included provided there was a wash out period of at least 14 days. There had to be a direct comparison in the trial of two or more of the trial drugs at any dosage. All trials used the third molar pain model. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All trials identified were scanned independently and in duplicate by two review authors, any disagreements were resolved by discussion, or if necessary a third review author was consulted. The proportion of patients with at least 50% pain relief (based on total pain relief (TOTPAR) and summed pain intensity difference (SPID) data) was calculated for all three drugs at both two and six hours postdosing and meta-analysed for comparison. The proportion of participants using rescue medication over both six and eight hours was also collated and compared. The number of patients experiencing adverse events or the total number of adverse events reported or both were analysed for comparison. MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies were included, they were all parallel-group studies, two studies were assessed as at low risk of bias and three at high risk of bias; two were considered to have unclear bias in their methodology. A total of 2241 participants were enrolled in these trials.Ibuprofen was found to be a superior analgesic to paracetamol at several doses with high quality evidence suggesting that ibuprofen 400 mg is superior to 1000 mg paracetamol based on pain relief (estimated from TOTPAR data) and the use of rescue medication meta-analyses. The risk ratio for at least 50% pain relief (based on TOTPAR) at six hours was 1.47 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 1.69; five trials) favouring 400 mg ibuprofen over 1000 mg paracetamol, and the risk ratio for not using rescue medication (also favouring ibuprofen) was 1.50 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.79; four trials).The combined drug showed promising results, with a risk ratio for at least 50% of the maximum pain relief over six hours of 1.77 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.39) (paracetamol 1000 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg) (one trial; moderate quality evidence), and risk ratio not using rescue medication 1.60 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.88) (two trials; moderate quality evidence).The information available regarding adverse events from the studies (including nausea, vomiting, headaches and dizziness) indicated that they were comparable between the treatment groups. However, we could not formally analyse the data as it was not possible to work out how many adverse events there were in total. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high quality evidence that ibuprofen is superior to paracetamol at doses of 200 mg to 512 mg and 600 mg to 1000 mg respectively based on pain relief and use of rescue medication data collected at six hours postoperatively. The majority of this evidence (five out of six trials) compared ibuprofen 400 mg with paracetamol 1000 mg, these are the most frequently prescribed doses in clinical practice. The novel combination drug is showing encouraging results based on the outcomes from two trials when compared to the single drugs.