Adverse reaction to dental local anaesthetic injection--'allergy' is not the cause

Allergy to Local Anesthetics is a Rarity: Review of Diagnostics and Strategies for Clinical Management

Local anesthetics (LA) are commonly used in procedures and in topical agents for pain management. With the increasing use of LA drugs, the management of LA reactions is more frequently encountered in the office and in operating rooms. True allergic reactions involving IgE-mediated reactions and anaphylaxis are rare; they have only been identified in case reports and account for less than 1% of adverse LA reactions. Most reactions are non-allergic or are a result of hypersensitivity to other culprits such as preservatives, excipients, or other exposures. LA reactions that are misclassified as true allergies can lead to unnecessary avoidance of LA drugs or delays in surgical procedures that require their use. A detailed history of prior LA reactions is the first and most crucial step for understanding the nature of the reaction. Reactions that are suspicious for an immediate hypersensitivity reaction can be evaluated with skin prick and intradermal testing with subsequent graded challenge. Reactions that are suspicious for a delayed hypersensitivity reaction can be evaluated with patch testing.

Tramadol as a local anaesthetic agent in dentistry: A systematic review of local and systemic adverse effects

Tramadol is an effective alternative local anaesthetic (LA) agent available in dentistry. This review aims to help guide practice by providing clinicians with relevant data regarding adverse effects (AE) associated with locally administered tramadol in the oral environment. A systematic search of three electronic databases was performed to identify relevant studies reporting AE associated with locally administered tramadol in the oral setting. Selected studies were reviewed and included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data collected included: publication year, study design, participant numbers, adverse effects and follow-up duration. Fifteen articles were included comprising of 547 tramadol participants across eight exodontia and seven non-exodontia studies. Thirty-eight associated AE were reported. Nausea was the most commonly reported (4.6%), followed by dizziness (1.3%), vomiting (0.7%) and local erythema (0.4%). No other AE were reported. The prevalence of total AE was similar in ≥ 50 mg tramadol doses (7.2-7.3%); however the total affected number is not dose dependent. The prevalence of AE and affected participants was less when tramadol was used as a sole LA rather than as an adjunct (5.6% vs. 7.9% and 3.4-5.6% vs. 6.3%, respectively). Thus, tramadol is a safe LA agent with a low prevalence of AE when administered in the dental setting.

Anaphylactic reactions to local anesthetics in dental practice: a nationwide French retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

The primary aims of the present study were (1) to quantify and characterize anaphylactic type I reactions related to local anesthetics (LAs) drawing on the French Pharmacovigilance Database System over a 35-year period and (2) to focuse on reactions associated with dental procedures. The secondary aim was to infer an incidence rate in dental practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All cases of anaphylactic reactions were selected using the algorithmic Standardized MeDRA Query "anaphylactic reaction." For each reaction, comprehensive data were collected, in particular the severity of symptoms, risk factors for anaphylaxis, and allergy testing. Imputability was assessed and a crude incidence rate in dental practice was estimated.

RESULTS

The first-line search identified 416 anaphylactic reactions, mostly of grade II (138) or III (240) severity. When restricted to dental practice, this number fell to 26 (grade I: 4; grade II: 10; grade III: 11; and grade IV: 1). Lidocaine was most often involved (81.49%) and mostly associated with anaphylactic reactions of grade II and III. Overall, 11 cases of fatal anaphylaxis were recorded, but no in dental practice. In dental practice, lidocaine was also the most frequently involved LA (57.69%).

CONCLUSIONS

All these findings highlight the very low incidence of type I-IgE-mediated reactions to LA, particularly in dental practice. The incidence rate of LA anaphylctic episodes in dental practice was estimated as 0.0261 anaphylactic episodes per million LA cartridges.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

True anaphylactic reactions to LAs do occur and may justify a thorough investigation in dental practice.

Lidocaine: A Local Anesthetic, Its Adverse Effects and Management

The most widely used medications in dentistry are local anesthetics (LA), especially lidocaine, and the number of recorded adverse allergic responses, particularly of hazardous responses, is quite low. However, allergic reactions can range from moderate to life-threatening, requiring rapid diagnosis and treatment. This article serves as a review to provide information on LA, their adverse reactions, causes, and management.

True Allergy to Amide Local Anesthetics: A Review and Case Presentation

Adverse reactions to local anesthetics are usually a reaction to epinephrine, vasovagal syncope, or overdose toxicity. Allergic reactions to local anesthetics are often attributed to additives such as metabisulfite or methylparaben. True allergic reactions to amide local anesthetics are extremely rare but have been documented. Patients with true allergy to amide local anesthetics present a challenge to the dental practitioner in providing adequate care with appropriate intraoperative pain management. Often, these patients may be treated under general anesthesia. We report a case of a 43-year-old female patient that presented to NYU Lutheran Medical Center Dental Clinic with a documented history of allergy to amide local anesthetics. This case report reviews the use of 1% diphenhydramine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as an alternative local anesthetic and reviews the relevant literature.

Is It Safe for Patients With Cardiac Channelopathies to Undergo Routine Dental Care? Experience From a Single-Center Study

Background Brugada syndrome and long-QT syndrome may account for at least one third of unexplained sudden cardiac deaths. Dental care in patients with cardiac channelopathies is challenging because of the potential risk of life-threatening events. We hypothesized that the use of local dental anesthesia with lidocaine with and without epinephrine is safe and does not result in life-threatening arrhythmias in patients with channelopathies. Methods and Results We performed a randomized, double-blind pilot trial comparing the use of 2% lidocaine without a vasoconstrictor and with 1:100 000 epinephrine in 2 sessions of restorative dental treatment with a washout period of 7 days (crossover trial). Twenty-eight-hour Holter monitoring was performed, and 12-lead electrocardiography, digital sphygmomanometry, and anxiety scale assessments were also conducted at 3 time points. Fifty-six dental procedures were performed in 28 patients (18 women, 10 men) with cardiac channelopathies: 16 (57.1%) had long-QT syndrome, and 12 (42.9%) had Brugada syndrome; 11 (39.3%) of patients had an implantable defibrillator. The mean age was 45.9±15.9 years. The maximum heart rate increased after the use of epinephrine during the anesthesia period from 82.1 to 85.8 beats per minute (P=0.008). In patients with long-QT syndrome, the median corrected QT was higher, from 450.1 to 465.4 ms (P=0.009) at the end of anesthesia in patients in whom epinephrine was used. The other measurements showed no statistically significant differences. No life-threatening arrhythmias occurred during dental treatment. Conclusions The use of local dental anesthesia with lidocaine, regardless of the use of a vasoconstrictor, did not result in life-threatening arrhythmias and appears to be safe in stable patients with cardiac channelopathies. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03182777.

Introduction to drug allergy, and whom to refer for specialist assessment?

Drug allergy is defined as an adverse drug reaction with an established immunological mechanism. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published clinical guidelines on drug allergy in 2014 and quality standards in 2015. The intention of this article is to highlight indications for referral to specialists for management of drug allergy. Accurate diagnosis of drug allergy is critical of course for patient safety, but also for better use of the drugs that we have available and to reduce unnecessary avoidance of drugs. However, there are significant limitations in terms of resource availability and also in terms of testing. There is a careful balance here in that drug allergy is very common and clearly there is neither indication nor sufficient resource in the NHS for all patients with drug allergy to be reviewed by a specialist. It is, therefore, important to highlight to general physicians and physicians of other specialties, those patients who do require referral for specialist review.

Allergic Reactions to Dental Materials-A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Utility of various dental materials ranging from diagnosis to rehabilitation for the management of oral diseases are not devoid of posing a potential risk of inducing allergic reactions to the patient, technician and dentist. This review aims to develop a systematic approach for the selection and monitoring of dental materials available in the market thereby giving an insight to predict their risk of inducing allergic reactions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our data included 71 relevant articles which included 60 case reports, 8 prospective studies and 3 retrospective studies. The source of these articles was Pub Med search done with the following terms: allergies to impression materials, sodium hypochlorite, Ledermix paste, zinc oxide eugenol, formaldehyde, Latex gloves, Methyl methacrylate, fissure sealant, composites, mercury, Nickel-chromium, Titanium, polishing paste and local anaesthesia. All the relevant articles and their references were analysed. The clinical manifestations of allergy to different dental materials based on different case reports were reviewed.

RESULTS

After reviewing the literature, we found that the dental material reported to cause most adverse reactions in patients is amalgam and the incidence of oral lichenoid reactions adjacent to amalgam restorations occur more often than other dental materials.

CONCLUSION

The most common allergic reactions in dental staff are allergies to latex, acrylates and formaldehyde. While polymethylmethacrylates and latex trigger delayed hypersensitivity reactions, sodium metabisulphite and nickel cause immediate reactions. Over the last few years, due to the rise in number of patients with allergies from different materials, the practicing dentists should have knowledge about documented allergies to known materials and thus avoid such allergic manifestations in the dental clinic.

Allergy to lidocaine injections: comparison of patient history with skin testing in five patients

INTRODUCTION

True allergy to local anesthetics, especially lidocaine, is uncommon. Most adverse reactions to this group of medications are classified as psychomotor, autonomic or toxic. In the case of suspected hypersensitivity to local anesthetics, skin testing is considered to be a useful tool - patch tests and intradermal tests for delayed hypersensitivity and skin prick tests and intradermal tests for immediate reactions. There is a particular need for such a diagnostic procedure, as patients suspected of hypersensitivity to local anesthetic drugs are frequently admitted.

AIM

To highlight the problem of hypersensitivity to local anesthetics on the basis of authors' own experience and literature data.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We present cases of 5 patients referred to the clinic by their dentists with a suspicion of allergy to local anesthetics, four to lidocaine and 1 to articaine.

RESULTS

Intradermal tests were positive in 1 out of 5 subjects, with a concomitant episode of urticaria. In 1 patient we obtained a doubtful result of intradermal tests. Skin prick tests and patch tests were negative in all cases. In 2 cases we performed an incremental challenge test also with a negative result.

CONCLUSIONS

It has to be emphasized that, although rare, consequences of true allergy to local anesthetics can be serious considering a patient's future management and therapy. That is why this diagnosis may be crucial.

An emphasis on the wide usage and important role of local anesthesia in dentistry: A strategic review

Local anesthesia forms the major part of pain-control techniques in dentistry. The prevention and elimination of pain during dental treatment has benefited patients, their doctors and dental hygienists, enabling the dental profession to make tremendous therapeutic advances that would otherwise have been impossible. Introduced in the late 1940s, the amide local anesthetics represent the most used drugs in dentistry. Local anesthetics also represent the safest and most effective drugs in all of medicine for the prevention and management of pain. They are also accompanied by various adverse effects which should be well known and be able to be controlled by the clinician. The article reviews the types of agents used as local anesthetics and their effects on the human body.

A randomized controlled trail comparing the efficacy of 0.5% centbucridine to 2% lignocaine as local anesthetics in dental extractions

The development of local anesthesia in dentistry has marked the beginning of a new era in terms of pain control. Lignocaine is the most commonly used local anesthetic (LA) agent even though it has a vasodilative effect and needs to be combined with adrenaline. Centbucridine is a non-ester, non amide group LA and has not been comprehensively studied in the dental setting and the objective was to compare it to Lignocaine. This was a randomized study comparing the onset time, duration, depth and cardiovascular parameters between Centbucridine (0.5%) and Lignocaine (2%). The study was conducted in the dental outpatient department at the Government Dental College in India on patients attending for the extraction of lower molars. A total of 198 patients were included and there were no significant differences between the LAs except those who received Centbucridine reported a significantly longer duration of anesthesia compared to those who received Lignocaine. None of the patients reported any side effects. Centbucridine was well tolerated and its substantial duration of anesthesia could be attributed to its chemical compound. Centbucridine can be used for dental procedures and can confidently be used in patients who cannot tolerate Lignocaine or where adrenaline is contraindicated.