Clinical study of hemodynamic changes comparing 4% articaine hydrochloride with 1:100,000 and 1:200,000 epinephrine

Evaluation of the effects of pregabalin and dexamethasone coadministration on preemptive multimodal analgesia and anxiety in third molar surgeries: a triple-blind randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of pregabalin and dexamethasone coadministration in preemptive analgesia and anxiety control in lower third molar surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A triple-blind, split-mouth clinical trial conducted with patients divided into two groups: control group, receiving placebo and dexamethasone, and test group, receiving pregabalin and dexamethasone preoperatively. The evaluated variables were pain, measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), anxiety assessed through the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) questionnaires, hemodynamic parameters [Blood Pressure (BP), Heart Rate (HR), Oxygen Saturation (SpO2)], and sedation assessed by the Ramsay scale.

RESULTS

A total of 31 patients were included. The test group exhibited a significant reduction in pain at 2,4,6,8,12,16,24, and 48 h after surgery and in the consumption of rescue analgesics. Anxiety, evaluated by STAI and VAS, showed a significant decrease in the test group (p < 0.001). Additionally, there was a significant decrease in BP at most of the assessed time points (p < 0.05) and a significant reduction in HR at two different time intervals (p = 0.003 and p = 0.009), indicating a positive effect in the test group. There was no significant difference in SpO2 between the groups. Sedation assessment revealed a significant difference at all time points favoring the test group (p < 0.05). There were no significant postoperative adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregabalin coadministered with dexamethasone demonstrated significant efficacy in controlling postoperative pain and anxiety, as well as a sedative effect.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The coadministration of pregabalin with dexamethasone may presents potential advantages in both pain modulation and psychological well-being of individuals undergoing third molar surgeries.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (REBEC), No. RBR-378h6t6.

Effectiveness of anesthetic solutions for pain control in lower third molar extraction surgeries: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of different anesthetic solutions for pain control immediately after the extraction of lower third molars.

METHODS

Nine databases were used to identify randomized clinical trials, without restriction of language or year of publication. The "JBI Critical Appraisal Tools for Systematic Reviews" was used to assess the risk of bias in the studies. The network meta-analysis was performed to compare the effectiveness of different anesthetics to control the pain immediately after the surgery of lower third molars, using the standardized mean difference (SMD) as the effect estimate. The GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

The search presented 13,739 initial results, from which 45 met the eligibility criteria and presented low to moderate risk of bias. Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. The 2% lidocaine + clonidine presented the lowest pain scores (SMD = - 1.44; - 2.72 to - 0.16) compared to 4% articaine + adrenaline, followed by 0.5% bupivacaine + adrenaline (SMD = - 1.36; - 2.13 to - 0.59). The certainty of evidence varied between very low to moderate.

CONCLUSION

2% lidocaine + clonidine and 0.5% bupivacaine + adrenaline were the anesthetics with the highest probability for pain control immediately after the surgical procedure of removing impacted lower third molars.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The use of an adequate anesthetic with effective pain control can contribute to a more comfortable postoperative period.

Which is the most suitable local anaesthetic when inferior nerve blocks are used for impacted mandibular third molar extraction? A network meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the different local anaesthetic agents for the extraction of impacted lower third molars. A network meta-analysis was performed of all published reports of randomized controlled clinical trials assessing efficacy (anaesthetic success and absence of need for supplementary anaesthesia during the surgical procedure) and/or safety (number of adverse events) of anaesthetic agents. Three electronic databases were searched, from their earliest records up to April 2019. Additionally, the grey literature was searched to identify further potential candidates for inclusion. Anaesthesia had to be delivered by an inferior alveolar nerve block, complemented with infiltration anaesthesia of the buccal nerve. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. This study included a total of 21 trials (2021 molars) assessing the efficacy and 19 trials (1977 molars) assessing the safety of 11 anaesthetic solutions. Seven of the studies included were considered to have a high risk of bias. The most effective local anaesthetic for the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars appeared to be 4% articaine, with significant differences when compared with 2% lidocaine, 0.5% bupivacaine, and 1% ropivacaine. Lidocaine is the safest local anaesthetic, although all investigated solutions can be used safely.

Real-time hemodynamic effects of 1:100,000 and 1:200,000 injectable epinephrine and placement of topical 1:1000 epinephrine pledgets in patients undergoing endoscopic sinus and skull-base surgery: a randomized, prospective study

BACKGROUND

Intranasal injection of epinephrine and placement of topical epinephrine pledgets are methods to improve visualization during endoscopic sinonasal surgery. Studies comparing the hemodynamic effects of these vasoconstrictors using intraoperative arterial line monitoring are lacking.

METHODS

Twenty-eight patients undergoing endoscopic skull-base surgery were enrolled in a prospective, randomized study. Patients were randomized to have either 2 mL of 1:100,000 or 2 mL of 1:200,000 epinephrine injected intranasally. Hemodynamic parameters, including pulse, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and mean arterial pressure (MAP), were collected using intraoperative arterial line monitoring for 5 minutes. Afterward, 1:1000 topical epinephrine-soaked pledgets were placed in both groups, and the same parameters were collected for another 5 minutes.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference in change in pulse, SBP, DBP, and MAP between the 1:100,000 and 1:200,000 epinephrine groups. However, epinephrine injections did cause an increase in all hemodynamic parameters when compared with baseline (p < 0.05). Topical epinephrine pledgets placed after injection of epinephrine did not have any significant hemodynamic effects, except for 2 of 28 patients who had a >75-mmHg increase in SBP. No preoperative characteristics were identified that predicted sensitivity to epinephrine.

CONCLUSION

There is no statistical difference in changes in hemodynamic parameters between injecting epinephrine 1:100,000 compared with 1:200,000 during endoscopic sinonasal surgery. In a subset of patients, placement of topical 1:1000 epinephrine pledgets had significant hemodynamic elevation requiring intervention and thus should be used judiciously depending on patient comorbidities.

Comparative Analysis Between Computed and Conventional Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Techniques

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this randomized, double-blind, controlled trial was to compare the computed and conventional inferior alveolar nerve block techniques in symmetrically positioned inferior third molars.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Both computed and conventional anesthetic techniques were performed in 29 healthy patients (58 surgeries) aged between 18 and 40 years. The anesthetic of choice was 2% lidocaine with 1: 200,000 epinephrine. The Visual Analogue Scale assessed the pain variable after anesthetic infiltration. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the Likert Scale. Heart and respiratory rates, mean time to perform technique, and the need for additional anesthesia were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Pain variable means were higher for the conventional technique as compared with computed, 3.45 ± 2.73 and 2.86 ± 1.96, respectively, but no statistically significant differences were found (P > 0.05). Patient satisfaction showed no statistically significant differences. The average computed technique runtime and the conventional were 3.85 and 1.61 minutes, respectively, showing statistically significant differences (P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The computed anesthetic technique showed lower mean pain perception, but did not show statistically significant differences when contrasted to the conventional technique.

Comparison of anesthetic efficacy of 2 and 4 % articaine in inferior alveolar nerve block for tooth extraction-a double-blinded randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this clinical prospective, randomized, double-blind trial was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 2 % articaine and 4 % articaine in inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia for extraction of mandibular teeth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 95 patients, 105 lower molar and premolar teeth were extracted after intraoral inferior alveolar nerve block. In 53 cases, 2 % articaine (group I) and, in 52 cases, 4 % articaine (group II) was administered. The primary objective was to analyze the differences of anesthetic effects between the two groups (complete/sufficient vs. insufficient/none). Furthermore, differences in pulpal anesthesia (onset and depth, examined with pulp vitality tester (min)), as well as in length of soft tissue anesthesia (min), were evaluated. Additionally, the need of a second injection, pain while injecting (numeric rating scale (NRS)), pain during treatment (NRS), pain after treatment (NRS), and other possible complications (excessive pain, bleeding events, prolonged deafness) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Anesthesia was sufficient for dental extractions in both groups without significant differences (p = 0.201). The onset of anesthesia did not differ significantly (p = 0.297). A significantly shorter duration of soft tissue anesthesia was seen in group I (2.9 vs. 4 h; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the need for a second injection (p = 0.359), in injection pain (p = 0.386), as well as in pain during (p = 0.287) or after treatment (p = 0.121). In both groups, no complications were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

The local anesthetic effect of the 4 % articaine solution is not significantly better when compared to 2 % articaine.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

For mandibular tooth extraction, articaine 2 % may be used as alternative as well.

Hemodynamic changes following injection of local anesthetics with different concentrations of epinephrine during simple tooth extraction: A prospective randomized clinical trial

Background

Presence of epinephrine in local anesthetic cartridge increases the duration of local anesthesia (LA), decreases the risk of toxicity, and provides hemostasis. However, the unfavorable effects are increasing heart rate (HR) and raising blood pressure (BP). The aim was to evaluate hemodynamic changes in the BP, HR, and oxygen saturation (SpO2) of normal patients undergoing tooth extraction using LA with various epinephrine concentrations.

Material and Methods

A prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted on 120 patients who were divided randomly into 3 parallel groups according to the LA received. Group 1: lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:80,000 (L80). Group 2: articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 (A100). Group 3: articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:200,000 (A200). Inclusion criteria: normal patients whose BP < 140/90. Exclusion criteria: hypertension, cardiovascular disease, hyperthyroidism, pregnancy, and allergy to LA. BP, HR, and (SpO2) were evaluated in 3 different time points: 3 minutes before LA, 3 minutes after LA, and 3 minutes after extraction.

Results

Systolic blood pressure (SBP) significantly increased after injection of L80 and continued after extraction to be significant than pre-injection. SBP significantly increased after injection of A100 then decreased after extraction. In the group of A200, SBP insignificantly decreased after injection then increased after extraction. The increasing of SBP between time point 1and 2 was significantly higher in G1 than G3 (p=0.014). Diastolic blood pressure decreased after LA in the 3 groups; however it was significant only with L80, then increased after extraction for all.

Conclusions

The changings of DBP, HR and SpO2 after anesthesia and extraction showed no significant difference among the three groups. However, A200 had significant lesser effect on SBP than L80 and the least effect on other parameters. Therefore, A200 is considered safer than L80 and A100 and is recommended for LA before teeth extraction in normal patient.

Key words:Local anesthesia, lidocaine, epinephrine 1:80,000, articaine, epinephrine 1:100,000, epinephrine 1:200,000, tooth extraction.

Efficacy and Safety of 2% and 4% Articaine for Lower Third Molar Surgery

This double-blind crossover randomized clinical trial compared the efficacy of 2 concentrations of articaine, 2% (A2) and 4% (A4), with 1:200,000 epinephrine, for lower third molar removal. During 2 separate appointments with either A2 or A4, both similarly positioned lower third molars in 46 volunteers were extracted. The following were evaluated: onset and duration of anesthetic action on soft tissues, intraoperative bleeding, hemodynamic parameters, postoperative analgesia, and mouth opening and wound healing during the 7th postoperative day, along with the incidence, type, and severity of adverse reactions. Nearly identical volumes of both anesthetic solutions were used for each appointment: 3.4 ± 0.9 mL ≈ 68 mg of articaine (A2) and 3.3 ± 0.8 mL ≈ 132 mg of articaine (A4). Statistical analysis indicated no differences in onset or duration of anesthetic action on soft tissues or duration of postoperative analgesia evoked by A2 and A4 anesthetic solutions (P > 0.05). The surgeon's rating of intraoperative bleeding was considered minimal throughout all surgery with both anesthetic solutions. While transient changes in blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation were observed, these factors were clinically insignificant and were uninfluenced by articaine concentration (P > 0.05). No systemic or local adverse reactions were observed in the preoperative and postoperative periods due to A2 or A4, but 1 case of bilateral paresthesia was observed. There were no significant differences between preoperative and postoperative (7th day) values of mouth opening and wound healing whether volunteers received A2 or A4 (P > 0.05). In conclusion, both A2 and A4, administered in equal volumes, were effective and safe during lower third molar surgery, and no significant differences were found between their efficacy and safety (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02457325).

Comparative study of hemodynamic changes caused by diazepam and midazolam during third molar surgery: a randomized controlled trial

The aim of the present study was to compare hemodynamic changes using midazolam 7.5 mg and diazepam 10.0 mg during the surgical removal of symmetrically positioned third molars. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, clinical trial was carried out involving 120 patients divided into three groups: Group 1 (diazepam and placebo), Group 2 (midazolam and placebo), and Group 3 (diazepam and midazolam). Each subject underwent two surgeries on separate occasions under local anesthesia. The following parameters were assessed at five different times (T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4): systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure (SBP, DBP, and MBP, respectively); heart rate (HR); oxygen saturation (SpO(2)); rate pressure product (RPP); and pressure rate quotient (PRQ). Statistically significant differences were found regarding heart rate at T2 and T3 (p < 0.005) in Group 2, with a higher rate occurring during midazolam administration. Moreover, significant differences in rate pressure product were found at T2, T3, and T4 in this group, with higher values also occurring during midazolam administration. In Group 3, significant differences in diastolic blood pressure were found at T3 and T4, with higher values occurring during diazepam administration, whereas a higher heart rate occurred at T3 with midazolam. Midazolam 7.5 mg and diazepam 10.0 mg exert an influence on some hemodynamic parameters without perceptible clinical changes in healthy patients undergoing lower third molar surgery.