Comparison of Preoperative Oral Ketorolac on Anesthetic Efficacy of Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block and Buccal and Lingual Infiltration with Articaine and Lidocaine in Patients with Irreversible Pulpitis: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Double-blind Study

Efficacy of Premedication With Ketorolac on Anaesthetic Success of Mental-Incisive Nerve Blocks With Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: A Randomised Clinical Trial

This trial aimed to compare the success of mental-incisive nerve blocks (MINB) on mandibular premolars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP) after oral premedication using 10 mg ketorolac or a placebo. One hundred and two patients were randomly divided into two groups. One hour prior to the administration of a MINB the patients were administered oral premedication's of either ketorolac or dextrose (placebo). The success of anaesthesia was verified by the absence of pain during the access cavity preparation or root canal instrumentation. Descriptive analysis was performed and categorical data were analysed using chi-squared tests. Binary logistic regression was performed to assess the relationship among age, sex, type of premedication taken, preoperative pain score and tooth length to the pain outcome. The efficacy of MINB on mandibular premolars with SIP was not influenced significantly by the preoperative oral administration of ketorolac. Trial Registration: CTRI/2021/11/038115.

Evidence-based safety profile of oral ketorolac in adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis

The primary objective of the present review was to report the safety profile of oral ketorolac in adults using the systematic review and meta-analysis methodology based on clinical trials. The present study is a PRISMA-based systematic review and risk ratio (RR) meta-analysis of the adverse events reported in clinical trials that used oral ketorolac; the review includes 50 clinical trials. The RR for the comparison of a single intake of oral ketorolac versus placebo, including all types of adverse events, was RR = 2.59, IC95% (1.5102; 4.4360) with p = 0.02, the RR for the comparison of a multiple intakes of oral ketorolac versus placebo for all types of adverse events was RR = 1.39, IC95% (0.95; 2.05) with p = 0.093, the RR for the comparison of a single intake of oral ketorolac versus active drugs for all types of adverse events was RR = 0.61, IC95% (0.49; 0.77) with p < 0.0001, the RR for the comparison of multiple intakes of oral ketorolac versus active drugs for all types of adverse events was RR = 0.78, IC95%(0.65; 0.93) with p = 0.006. Multiple intakes of 5, 10, or 20 mg of oral ketorolac, in treatment over 1-10 days, do not increase the risk of adverse events compared to placebo and show a tendency to reduce the risk of adverse events compared to active drugs. When a single intake of ketorolac (5, 10, 20, or 30 mg) is compared to a placebo, the risk increases only for trivial and mild adverse events.

Effect of Preoperative Oral Steroids in Comparison to Anti-inflammatory on Anesthetic Success of Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Mandibular Molars with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis-A Double-blinded Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

This randomized double-blinded trial aimed to compare the anesthetic success of inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANBs) with 2% lidocaine in mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP) after oral premedication of prednisolone, dexamethasone, and ketorolac with placebo.

METHODS

One hundred eighty-four patients diagnosed with SIP in mandibular molars randomly received prednisolone, dexamethasone, ketorolac, or placebo (n = 46 each) 60 minutes before the administration of an IANB. The access cavity preparation was initiated after successfully confirming lip numbness and two consecutive negative responses to electric pulp testing. The success of the anesthesia was clinically confirmed when pain was absent during the endodontic access or instrumentation. A one-way analysis of variance test was used to compare quantitative variables among the groups, and chi-square tests were used for comparing categorical variables. Binary logistic regression was performed to analyze the relationship of age, preoperative pain, and preoperative medications.

RESULTS

When premedicated with oral dexamethasone, ketorolac, prednisolone, and placebo, the success rate of IANB was determined to be 60.86 %, 65.21 %, 56.52 %, and 21.73 %, respectively. Compared to the placebo, the success rate of IANB was significantly increased when patients were premedicated with prednisolone, dexamethasone, or ketorolac. However, there were no statistically significant differences among prednisolone, dexamethasone, and ketorolac. One individual in the ketorolac group reported gastritis, whereas no adverse effects were reported in the dexamethasone or prednisolone groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative use of oral ketorolac, dexamethasone, or prednisolone may increase the anesthetic efficacy of IANB in mandibular molars with SIP.

Effect of preoperative tramadol, ibuprofen, ibuprofen/acetaminophen on the anaesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis

The purpose of this double-blind clinical trial was to compare the effect of preoperative tramadol 50 mg, tramadol 100 mg, ibuprofen 600 mg, ibuprofen 600 mg/acetaminophen 1000 mg or placebo 60 min before the administration of inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) of mandibular teeth in patients experiencing symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP). Two hundred and fifty emergency patients diagnosed with SIP were randomly divided into five groups and received medications. Endodontic access was begun 15 min after completion of the IANB, and all patients had profound lip numbness. The Heft-Parker visual analogue scale was used to evaluate pain. Premedication with tramadol 100 mg significantly increased the success rate to 62% than the other groups (p < 0.05). The success rates of ibuprofen, ibuprofen/acetaminophen and tramadol 50 mg groups were not significantly different (p > 0.05). Premedication with tramadol 100 mg enhanced the anaesthetic success of IANB in mandibular molars with SIP.

Present status and future directions - Mechanisms and management of local anaesthetic failures

Pain control during root canal treatment is of utmost importance for both the patient and the dental practitioner and many studies have investigated ways of overcoming problems with gaining adequate anaesthesia during treatment. The PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched for evidence-based studies regarding local anaesthesia for root canal treatment. Many variables, including premedication, pain during needle insertion, pain on injection, premedication with various types of drugs, volume of anaesthetic solutions, supplemental anaesthetic techniques, and additives to the anaesthetic solutions, may influence pain perception during root canal treatment. Differences between teeth with healthy pulps versus those with irreversible pulpitis should be considered when the effects of variables are interpreted. There are several concerns regarding the methodologies used in studies that have evaluated anaesthesia success rates. There are some conditions that may help to predict a patient's pain during root canal treatment and these conditions could be overcome either by employing methods such as premedication with a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug prior to the treatment visit or by using supplementary anaesthetic techniques before or during the treatment. However, authors need to be more careful when reporting details of their studies to reduce concerns regarding their study bias.

Effect of pre-operative medication with paracetamol and ketorolac on the success of inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a double-blind randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of local anesthesia decreases in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Therefore, it was proposed that the use of premedication with an anti-inflammatory drug might increase the success rate of pulpal anesthesia in mandibular posterior teeth with vital inflamed pulp.

METHODS

One hundred thirty-four patients who were actively experiencing pain willingly participated in this study. The Heft Parker (HP) visual analog scale (VAS) was used to record the initial pain intensity. Patients were randomly allocated to receive a placebo, 10 mg of ketorolac, and 650 mg of paracetamol. The standard inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) was administered to all patients using 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 adrenaline after one hour of medication. After 15 min, the patient was instructed to rate the discomfort during each step of the treatment procedure, such as access to remaining dentin, access to the pulp chamber, and during canal instrumentation on the HP VAS. IANB was considered successful if the patient reported no or mild pain during access preparation and instrumentation. Moderate or severe pain was classified as a failure of IANB and another method of anesthesia was used before continuing the treatment.

RESULTS

The rate of successful anesthesia in the placebo, paracetamol, and ketorolac groups was 29%, 33%, and 43%, respectively, and no statistically significant difference was found between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative administration of paracetamol or ketorolac did not significantly affect the success rate of IANB in patients with irreversible pulpitis. No significant difference was observed between the paracetamol and ketorolac groups.

Effectiveness of different anesthetic methods for mandibular posterior teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of anesthetic methods for mandibular posterior teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, comparing to the inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) by meta-analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies were identified from Cochrane Library, Embase, Lilacs, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to May 2021. Randomized clinical trials comparing the anesthetic success rate of IANB and any other alternative anesthetic method were included. The quality of the selected studies was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel method and random-effect models were performed to find the pooled estimates of risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were selected, which included fourteen anesthetic methods. Two studies were classified as high risk of bias, five as uncertain risk and fifteen as low risk. Vazirani-Akinosi nerve block (VANB) [RR = 1.27; p = 0.007; 95% CI, 1.07-1.52; I² = 0%] and intraosseous injection (IOI) [RR = 1.48; p = 0.04; 95% CI, 1.02-2.15; I² = 46%] had superior effectiveness compared to IANB, with low certainty of evidence, as well as buccal infiltrations associated with IANB (BI + IANB) [RR = 1.84; p = 0.004; 95% CI, 1.22-2.79; I² = 52%], with very low certainty.

CONCLUSION

Evidence suggests that buccal infiltrations associated with IANB, VANB, and IOI are more effective than IANB at anesthetizing posterior mandibular teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Alternative primary methods of anesthesia might be indicated for mandibular posterior teeth presenting symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

The effect of pre-operative submucosal administration of dexamethasone, tramadol, articaine on the success rate of inferior alveolar nerve block on mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: A randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial

AIM

To establish the effects of submucosal tramadol, dexamethasone and articaine on the success of inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) during root canal treatment of mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP).

METHODOLOGY

In this randomized double-blind, controlled clinical trial, 120 patients with the diagnosis of SIP in their mandibular first or second molars were included and randomly divided into four groups (n = 30). The control group received normal saline and three experimental groups received a single dose of dexamethasone (8 mg/2 mL), or tramadol (100 mg/2 mL) or articaine (4% / 2 mL). The pre-operative pain levels of the patients were measured with the Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (HP VAS). All patients received standard IANB of 4% articaine with 1:200000 epinephrine. Following the observation of lip numbness, submucosal injections were administered into the mucobuccal fold adjacent to the mandibular molars. After 15 min, standard root canal treatment was initiated, and the pain intensity levels recorded from the access cavity preparation to pulp extirpation were measured with HP VAS. The duration of the anaesthesia was also evaluated. The experimental groups were compared using one-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis H-test. The groups that were significantly different were compared pairwise using the Tukey Multiple Comparison test. The Chi-square test was used to compare the categorical variables.

RESULTS

The submucosal administration of articaine significantly increased the success rate to 63% in comparison with the control group that received submucosal saline (p < .05). The success rate of pulpal anaesthesia was 37% in the control group, 57% in the tramadol group and 47% in the dexamethasone group, with no significant difference in the success rate among these groups. In the dexamethasone group, the duration of the anaesthetic effect of IANB was significantly longer than those in the other groups (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with SIP, pre-operative submucosal administration of articaine increased the success rate of IANB, while administration of dexamethasone increased the duration of anaesthesia. These agents can be used in cases where effective anaesthesia cannot be obtained during root canal treatments.

Anesthetic efficacy of primary and supplemental buccal/lingual infiltration in patients with irreversible pulpitis in human mandibular molars: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Achieving profound anesthesia in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis is a tedious task. This review aimed at evaluating the success of buccal/lingual infiltrations administered with a primary inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) injection or as a supplemental injection after the failure of the primary injection in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with irreversible pulpitis in human mandibular molars. The review question was “What will be the success of primary and supplemental infiltration injection in the endodontic treatment of patients with irreversible pulpitis in human mandibular molars?” We searched electronic databases, including Pubmed, Scopus, and Ebsco host and we did a comprehensive manual search. The review protocol was framed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. We included clinical studies that evaluated and compared the anesthetic outcomes of primary IANB with primary and/or supplementary infiltration injections. Standard evaluation of the included studies was performed and suitable data and inferences were assessed. Twenty-six studies were included, of which 13 were selected for the meta-analysis. In the forest plot representation of the studies evaluating infiltrations, the combined risk ratio (RR) was 1.88 (95% CI: 1.49, 2.37), in favor of the secondary infiltrations with a statistical heterogeneity of 77%. The forest plot analysis for studies comparing primary IANB + infiltration versus primary IANB alone showed a low heterogeneity (0%). The included studies had similar RRs and the combined RR was 1.84 (95% CI: 1.44, 2.34). These findings suggest that supplemental infiltrations given along with a primary IANB provide a better success rate. L'Abbe plots were generated to measure the statistical heterogeneity among the studies. Trial sequential analysis suggested that the number of patients included in the analysis was adequate. Based on the qualitative and quantitative analyses, we concluded that the infiltration technique, either as a primary injection or as a supplementary injection, given after the failure of primary IANB, increases the overall anesthetic efficacy.

Interventions for anesthetic success in symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

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.

Effect of Premedication on the Success of Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Patients with Irreversible Pulpitis: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background

Failure in the provision of inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia (IANB) is a significant problem during endodontic treatment of irreversible pulpitis. Various methodologies have been advocated one of which is administration of premedication prior to anesthesia. Despite the considerable number of reports, the topic yet deserves more clarification. This systematic review was conducted to provide an oversight on the effectiveness of premedication prior to IANB in mandibular teeth.

Methods

A PubMed and Cochrane Database search was conducted by using MeSH terms inferior alveolar nerve block + pulpitis and mandibular anesthesia+pulpitis. Two reviewers independently performed the screening, selection of papers, and data extraction. Papers in English language that included randomized clinical studies on the impact of different medications on the success of inferior alveolar block anesthesia in irreversible pulpitis were included. Additionally, relevant supporting literature was also used where necessary.

Results

Initially, 118 papers were selected from PubMed and 68 were selected from Cochrane. Five additional articles were retrieved from Google Search. Following the elimination of duplicates and irrelevant articles, 35 studies were selected meeting the criteria. It was observed that there was moderate evidence to suggest that some premedications were partially effective for the enhancement of mandibular anesthetic effect in irreversible pulpitis.

Conclusion

Though some medications appear to be promising, further supporting research will help highlight this significant topic which requires further clarification.

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.

Oral Ketorolac with Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block for Irreversible Pulpitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background:

Ketorolac has advantages over other analgesics as a pre-anaesthetic medication. Considering this in mind, the present meta-analysis aims to identify the effect of oral ketorolac premedication on the anaesthetic efficacy of Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block (IANB) in patients with irreversible pulpitis.

Methods:

Full-texts of eligible studies were obtained from electronic databases. The extracted data was analysed using non-Cochrane mode in RevMan 5.0 software. Relative risk [95% CI] was calculated for the success of IANB.

Results:

Four studies were included for the final review. The success rate of IANB on 221 patients with relative risk of 1.87 [1.36, 2.56] was statistically significant favouring ketorolac. The mean difference for VAS in 171 patients was not statistically significant {-13.55 [-33.91, 6.82]}.

Conclusion:

Oral ketorolac can be successfully administered as a premedication before conventional inferior alveolar nerve block for endodontic treatment for irreversible pulpitis.

Effect of oral premedication on the anaesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with irreversible pulpitis - A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

This systematic review (SR; PROSPERO database: CRD42017075160) and network meta-analysis (NMA) identified the most effective oral premedication for anaesthetic success of inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) in cases of irreversible pulpitis. Medline and Ebscohost databases were searched up until 10/2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) studying the effect of oral premedication, alone or in combination, on the success of IANB for cases of irreversible pulpitis, compared to placebo or other oral premedications, were included. Quality of the included studies was appraised by the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials. Pairwise analysis, NMA and quality of evidence assessment using GRADE criteria were performed. Nineteen studies (n = 1654 participants) were included. NMA demonstrated that compared to placebo, dexamethasone was most effective in increasing anaesthetic success (RR, 2.92 [95% CI 1.74,4.91]; SUCRA = 0.96), followed by NSAIDs (RR, 1.92 [95% CI 1.63,2.27], SUCRA = 0.738) and Tramadol (RR, 2.03 [95% CI 1.18,3.49], SUCRA = 0.737). Premedication with acetaminophen added to NSAIDs demonstrated similar efficacy as NSAIDs alone (RR, 1.06 [95% CI 0.79,1.43]). Sensitivity analyses proved the superiority of dexamethasone or NSAIDs over any other premedications. Subgroup analyses of specific dosages in comparison with placebo demonstrated that dexamethasone 0.5 mg was most effective, followed by ketorolac 10 mg, piroxicam 20 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg + acetaminophen 500 mg and Tramadol 50 mg. Ibuprofen 400 mg, 600 mg and 800 mg had a significantly improved IANB success, while Ibuprofen 300 mg had no effect. Oral premedication with dexamethasone, NSAIDs or Tramadol significantly increased anaesthetic success. More trials are needed to evaluate the premedication effects of dexamethasone or Tramadol for improved anaesthetic success of IANB when treating irreversible pulpitis.

Efficacy of Articaine versus Lidocaine in Supplemental Infiltration for Mandibular First versus Second Molars with Irreversible Pulpitis: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Profound pulpal anesthesia is difficult to achieve in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis (IP). However, there are no published randomized controlled clinical trials comparing the success of supplemental buccal infiltration (BI) in mandibular first versus second molars with IP. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the efficacy of 4% articaine with 2% lidocaine for supplemental BIs in mandibular first versus second molars with IP after a failed inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). This study's sample was combined with data from a previous trial.

METHODS

One hundred ninety-nine emergency subjects diagnosed with IP of a mandibular molar were selected and received an IANB with 4% articaine. Subjects who failed to achieve profound pulpal anesthesia, determined by a positive response to cold or pain upon access, randomly received 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine as a supplemental BI. Endodontic access was begun 5 minutes after infiltration. Success was defined as less than mild pain during endodontic access and instrumentation on the Heft-Parker visual analog scale.

RESULTS

There was a 25% IANB success rate with 4% articaine. The success rate for articaine supplemental BI in first molars was 61% versus 63% for second molars (P > .05). The success of lidocaine in first molars was 66%, but for second molars it was 32% (P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

The success rate for IANB with 4% articaine was 25%. Articaine and lidocaine had similar success rates for supplemental infiltration in first molars, whereas articaine was significantly more successful for second molars. However, because BI often did not provide profound pulpal anesthesia, additional techniques including intraosseous anesthesia may still be required.

Anesthetic Efficacy of Articaine and Ketamine for Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: A Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Study

Introduction

The aim of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to investigate the effect of articaine combined with ketamine on the success rate of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in posterior mandible teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

Methods and Materials

Forty two adult patients with diagnosis of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis of a mandibular posterior tooth were selected. The patients received two cartridges of either containing 3.2 mL 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:200000 and 0.4 mL 50 mg/mL ketamine hydrochloride (A-ketamine group) or 3.2 mL 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:200000 and 0.4 mL normal saline (A-saline group) using conventional IANB injections. Access cavity preparation started 15 min after injection. Lip numbness was required for all the patients. Success was considered as no or mild pain on the basis of Heft-Parker visual analog scale recordings upon access cavity preparation or initial instrumentation. Data were analyzed by independent student t, Mann-Whitney and Chi-square tests.

Results

The success rates were 55% and 42.9% for A-ketamine and A-saline group, respectively, with no significant differences between the two groups (P=0.437).

Conclusion

Adding 0.4 mL 50 mg/mL ketamine hydrochloride to the articaine local anesthetic did not increase the efficacy of IANB for posterior mandibular teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

The Combination of Ketorolac with Local Anesthesia for Pain Control in Day Care Retinal Detachment Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of ketorolac with local anesthesia compared to local anesthesia alone for perioperative pain control in day care retinal detachment surgery. The randomized controlled trial included 59 eyes of 59 participants for retinal detachment surgery who were randomly assigned (1 : 1) into the ketorolac (K) group and control (C) group. All participants underwent conventional local anesthesia while patients in the K group received an extra administration of preoperative ketorolac. Participants in the K group had a statistically significantly lower intraoperative NRS score (median 1.0 versus 3.0, P = 0.003), lower postoperative NRS score (median 0 versus 1.0, P = 0.035), fewer proportion of rescue analgesic requirement (10% versus 34.5%, P = 0.023), and lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (13.3% versus 41.4%, P = 0.015) compared to the C group. Intraocular pressure (IOP) changes (△IOP) were significantly reduced in the K group (median 1.9 versus 3.0, P = 0.038) compared to the C group 24 hours postoperatively. In conclusion, the combination of local anesthesia with ketorolac provides better pain control in retinal detachment surgery compared to local anesthesia alone. The beneficial effect of ketorolac with local anesthesia may contribute to a wider-spread adoption of day care retinal detachment surgery. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02729285.