Patients' experience of pain and discomfort during instrumentation in the diagnosis and non-surgical treatment of periodontitis.

BACKGROUND: The present multicenter study aimed to survey the patients' experiences in relation to the diagnosis and non-surgical treatment of periodontitis according to current treatment routine. METHODS: Patients (N = 268) treated for plaque-related periodontitis were enrolled in two groups: group 1 received primary probing of pocket depths (PD 1) and/or primary scaling and root planing (SRP 1); group 2 consisted of patients who were scheduled in the different centers for recall PD/scaling/subgingival instrumentation. Data collection included a full periodontal status, anesthesia employed, procedure time, and patient self-completed questionnaires to assess their previous and current experience of pain and discomfort during anesthesia and periodontal treatment. RESULTS: Ninety percent of the patients received infiltration anesthesia during primary SRP, compared to only 2% during recall scaling/instrumentation and none during PD. Many patients (40% in SRP group 1 and 52% in the recall scaling/instrumentation group) were most bothered by the scaling procedure, while others (35% in the primary SRP patients) by the anesthetic injection. Painful experiences during previous primary PD and present SRP were highly correlated (r = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: From these results, it is evident that subgingival instrumentation causes pain and discomfort, an aspect that should be considered in periodontal therapy. Unfortunately, the use of local infiltration anesthesia to reduce pain is in itself a cause of discomfort. Attractive alternatives for anesthetic applications are much needed.

Patient evaluation of a novel non-injectable anesthetic gel: a multicenter crossover study comparing the gel to infiltration anesthesia during scaling and root planing.

BACKGROUND: Periodontal scaling procedures commonly require some kind of anesthesia. From the patient's perspective, the choice of anesthetic method is a trade-off between the degree of anesthesia and accepting the side effects. The present study evaluates the preferences for a novel non-injection anesthetic product (a gel, containing lidocaine 25 mg/g plus prilocaine 25 mg/g and thermosetting agents) versus injection anesthesia (lidocaine 2% adrenaline) in conjunction with scaling and/or root planing (SRP). METHODS: In a multicenter, crossover, randomized, open study patients were asked, after they had experienced both products, if they preferred anesthetic gel or injection anesthesia. In addition, the adequacy of anesthesia and occurrence of post-procedure problems were assessed. The patients were also asked about their willingness to return if they were offered anesthetic gel at their next visit and their maximum willingness to pay (WTP) for this option. RESULTS: One-hundred seventy (170) patients at eight centers in Belgium were included in the study. There were 157 per protocol (PP) patients. A vast majority of the PP patients (70%) preferred the anesthetic gel to injection anesthesia (22%). The most common reason was less post-procedure numbness. Eighty percent (80%) of the patients expressed satisfactory anesthesia with the gel and 96% with injection anesthesia (P <0.001). Post-procedure problems were significantly less with the gel than with injection (P <0.001): numbness 15% versus 66%, unpleasant sensations such as soreness and pain 44% versus 63%, and problems connected with daily activities 19% versus 69%. The majority of patients (60%) who preferred gel were also willing to pay for it. A conservative estimate of the median WTP was $10.00. Furthermore, anesthetic gel would make almost every second patient (45%) more or much more willing to return for the next treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that a somewhat less profound anesthesia with gel is clearly preferred by the patients because of the low incidence of post-procedure problems as compared to conventional injection anesthesia. The median WTP is likely in excess of the acquisition cost of the product, which indicates a favorable cost-benefit ratio for the individual patient.