• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.46 no.3
• /
• pp.41.1-41.23
• /
• 2021

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of various local anesthesia (LA) in vital asymptomatic teeth. Materials and Methods: Randomized controlled trials comparing pulpal anesthesia of various LA on vital asymptomatic teeth were included in this review. Searches were conducted in the Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar and 3 field-specific journals from inception to May 3, 2019. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool were done by 2 independent reviewers in duplicate. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed within the frequentist setting using STATA 15.0. The LA was ranked, and the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) line was plotted. The confidence of the NMA estimates was assessed using the CINeMA web application. Results: The literature search yielded 1,678 potentially eligible reports, but only 42 were included in this review. For maxillary buccal infiltration, articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 was more efficacious than lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000 (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-3.89). For mandibular buccal infiltration, articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 was more efficacious than various lidocaine solutions. The SUCRA ranking was highest for articaine 4% with epinephrine when used as maxillary and mandibular buccal infiltrations, and lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:80,000 when used as inferior alveolar nerve block. Inconsistency and imprecision were detected in some of the NMA estimates. Conclusions: Articaine 4% with epinephrine is superior when maxillary or mandibular infiltration is required in vital asymptomatic teeth.

• Journal of Oral Medicine and Pain
• /
• v.45 no.2
• /
• pp.44-47
• /
• 2020

The case of pseudo-aneurysm of internal maxillary artery (IMA) in oral and maxillofacial region is known to be very rare. The etiology of this case was regarded as IMA injury by radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and such incidence was not reported previously. One case of false aneurysm in the IMA was referred from local dental clinic to our department. Left facial swelling was observed with severe trismus immediately after radiofrequency procedure for masseteric nerve block in local dental clinic. Despite of medication and surgical intervention, the swelling did not subside and there was massive bleeding and pulsation on one of the follow ups. The traumatic vascular disorder was suspected and finally diagnosed with angiography and treated by embolization procedure. RFA targeting masseteric nerve or trigeminal ganglion may cause traumatic injury to adjacent anatomic structures such as IMA, resulting in pseudo-aneurysm. Clinicians must be aware of potential damages of RFA. Angiography enables the solid diagnosis for pseudo-aneurysm, and selective embolization can be optimum treatment method.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.173-180
• /
• 2007

According to the increase in use of implants in clinical dentistry, new kinds of complications happen. Complications that can happen during implant placement are bleeding, nerve injury, jaw fracture, fenestration of maxillary sinus or nasal cavity, dehiscence, fenestration, injury of adjacent tooth. And complications that can happen after implant operation are infection, bleeding, hematoma, chronic sinusitis, peri-implantitis. Problems that are confronted during implant placement happen by inadequate preoperative treatment plan, inadequate consideration about individual anatomic difference, inadequate operation process and lack of experience of clinician. It is important that clinicians consider possible complications in advance and make a comprehensive treatment plan. We report the patient who was happened ramus fracture during block bone harvesting from ramus of severely atrophic mandible, the patient who came to emergency ward due to postoperative swelling and bleeding and the patient whose implant was migrated to maxillary sinus with a review of literature.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.179-186
• /
• 2020

This systematic review aims to determine if a single buccal infiltration (without palatal infiltration in the maxilla and Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in the mandible) with 4% articaine can induce adequate analgesia for the extraction of primary molars (Maxillary and Mandibular) in children. PubMed, Ovid SP, and Embase were searched for studies published between January 1990 and March 2020 with the relevant MeSH terms. Titles and abstracts were screened preliminarily, followed by the full-texts of the included studies. Five articles were included for this systematic review. The outcome investigated was "Procedural pain during the extraction of primary molars after injection with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine in comparison to single buccal infiltration, double infiltration (buccal and palatal/lingual), and inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% lignocaine." Of the five studies that evaluated subjective pain during extraction, two reported no significant difference between the articaine and lignocaine groups, and the remaining three reported lower subjective pain during extraction in the articaine group. Only two studies evaluated objective pain scores during extraction, and both studies reported lower pain scores in the articaine group. There is insufficient evidence to justify the statement that a single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine alone is sufficient for the extraction of primary molars. Further evidence is required to justify the claim that palatal infiltrations and IANB can be replaced with the use of 4% articaine single buccal infiltration for the extraction of primary molars in children.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.6
• /
• pp.317-325
• /
• 2023

Background: Local anesthetic injections may induce pain in children, leading to fear and anxiety during subsequent visits. Among the various approaches recommended to reduce pain, one is the use of a Buzzy Bee^TM device that operates on the concept of gate control theory and distraction. The literature regarding its effectiveness during the deposition of local anesthesia remains limited; hence, the aim of the present study was to determine the efficacy of extraoral cold and vibrating devices in reducing pain perception during the deposition of local anesthesia. Methods: A split-mouth crossover study in which 40 children aged 3-12 years requiring maxillary infiltration or inferior alveolar nerve block for extractions or pulp therapy in the maxillary or mandibular posterior teeth were included. The control intervention involved the application of topical anesthetic gel for one minute (5% lignocaine gel), followed by the administration of local anesthetic (2% lignocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline) at a rate of 1 ml/ minute. Along with the control protocol, the test intervention involved using the Buzzy Bee^TM device for 2 minutes before and during the deposition of the local anesthetic injection. The heart rate and face, legs, arms, cry, and consolability revised (FLACC-R) scale scores were recorded by the dentist to assess the child's pain perception. Results: The mean age of the participants in Group A and Group B was 7.050 ± 3.12 years and 7.9 ± 2.65 years respectively. A reduction in the mean heart rate and FLACC-R score was observed during the deposition of local anesthetic solution in the tissues when the Buzzy Bee^TM was used in both groups at different visits in the same subjects (P < 0.05) The Buzzy Bee^TM device was effective in reducing the heart rate and FLACC-R scores when used during maxillary infiltration and inferior alveolar nerve block local anesthesia techniques (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The use of extraoral cold and vibrating devices significantly reduces pain perception during local anesthetic deposition in pediatric patients. Considering the results of this study, the device may be incorporated as an adjunct in routine dental practice while administering local anesthesia in children.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.4
• /
• pp.209-215
• /
• 2019

Background: Pain is an unpleasant sensation ranging from mild localized discomfort to agony and is one of the most commonly experienced symptoms in oral surgery. Usually, local anesthetic agents and analgesics are used for pain control in oral surgical procedures. Local anesthetic agents including lignocaine and bupivacaine are routinely used in varying concentrations. The present study was designed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of 0.25% and 0.5% bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia in infraorbital nerve block. Methods: Forty-one patients undergoing bilateral maxillary orthodontic extraction received 0.5% bupivacaine (n = 41) on one side and 0.25% bupivacaine (n = 41) on the other side at an interval of 7 d. The parameters evaluated for both the bupivacaine concentrations were onset of action, pain during procedure (visual analog scale score [VAS]), and duration of action. The results were noted, tabulated, and analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results: The onset of action of 0.5% bupivacaine was quicker than that of 0.25% bupivacaine, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.306). No significant difference was found between the solutions for VAS scores (P = 0.221) scores and duration of action (P = 0.662). Conclusion: There was no significant difference between 0.25% bupivacaine and 0.5% bupivacaine in terms of onset of action, pain during procedure, and duration of action. The use of 0.25% bupivacaine is recommended.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.6
• /
• pp.323-341
• /
• 2019

Background: Local anesthetics alone or in combination with adjuncts, such as oral medications, have routinely been used for pain control during endodontic treatment. The best clinical choice amongst the vast numbers of agents and techniques available for pain control for irreversible pulpitis is unclear. This network meta-analysis combined the available evidence on agents and techniques for pulpal anesthesia in the maxilla and mandible, in order to identify the best amongst these approaches statistically, as a basis for future clinical trials. Methods: Randomized trials in MEDLINE, DARE, and COCHRANE databases were screened based on inclusion criteria and data were extracted. Heterogeneity was assessed and odds ratios were used to estimate effects. Inconsistencies between direct and indirect pooled estimates were evaluated by H-statistics. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation working group approach was used to assess evidence quality. Results: Sixty-two studies (nine studies in the maxilla and 53 studies in the mandible) were included in the meta-analysis. Increased mandibular pulpal anesthesia success was observed on premedication with aceclofenac + paracetamol or supplemental 4% articaine buccal infiltration or ibuprofen+paracetamol premedication, all the above mentioned with 2% lignocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). No significant difference was noted for any of the agents investigated in terms of the success rate of maxillary pulpal anesthesia. Conclusion: Direct and indirect comparisons indicated that some combinations of IANB with premedication and/or supplemental infiltration had a greater chance of producing successful mandibular pulpal anesthesia. No ideal technique for maxillary anesthesia emerged. Randomized clinical trials with increased sample size may be needed to provide more conclusive data. Our findings suggest that further high-quality studies are required in order to provide definitive direction to clinicians regarding the best agents and techniques to use for mandibular and maxillary anesthesia for irreversible pulpitis.