Complications of local anaesthesia. An observational study

Adverse effects following dental local anesthesia: a literature review

Local anesthesia is indispensable in dentistry. Worldwide, millions of local anesthetic injections are administered annually, and are generally considered safe invasive procedures. However, adverse effects are possible, of which dentists should be aware of. This scoping review aimed to provide an extensive overview of the reported literature on the adverse effects of dental local anesthesia. The types of papers, what is reported, and how they are reported were reviewed. Additionally, the incidence and duration of adverse effects and factors influencing their occurrence were also reviewed. An electronic search for relevant articles was performed in PubMed and Embase databases from inception to January 2, 2020. The titles and abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers. The analysis was narrative, and no meta-analysis was performed. This study included 78 articles. Ocular and neurological adverse effects, allergies, hematomas, needle breakage, tissue necrosis, blanching, jaw ankylosis, osteomyelitis, and isolated atrial fibrillation have been described. Multiple adverse effects of dental local anesthesia have been reported in the literature. The results were heterogeneous, and detailed descriptions of the related procedures were lacking. Vital information concerning adverse effects, such as the dosage or type of anesthetic solution, or the type of needle used, was frequently missing. Therefore, high-quality research on this topic is needed. Finally, the adverse effects that are rarely encountered in real-world general practice are overrepresented in the literature.

A Tale of Two Teaching Methods: Students' Clinical Perspectives on Administering Dental Local Anesthetics

Various preclinical methodologies have been adopted by dental and oral health programs to develop student competence in administering dental local anesthetics (LA). Student-to-student practice is the most common preclinical training method. However, manikin simulation models have been introduced to avoid possible complications and ethical concerns with student-to-student injections. In 2017, the methodology was changed in the Bachelor of Oral Health program at The University of Sydney School of Dentistry in Australia from student-to-student practice to manikin simulation models. The aim of this study was to compare the students' learning experience, perceived confidence, and anxiety in giving their first injections to patients in these two preclinical training methods. A mixed-methods cohort design was used to compare the 2016 (n = 42) and 2017 (n = 32) oral health students' experiences and perceptions and evaluate students' clinical experience after commencing LA practice on patients. Students completed a questionnaire about their perceived level of confidence and anxiety before and after their first LA to a child and an adult for both infiltration and inferior alveolar nerve b lock (IANB) injections. Focus groups were conducted to further investigate the students' experience. The results showed that the perceived confidence and anxiety of the two cohorts did not differ significantly from each other. Although students found it difficult to transition into clinical practice without having experienced LA themselves, the manikin simulation practice provided a safe learning platform that avoided ethical and legal concerns. These findings support the use of manikin simulation models as an alte rnative method for dental local anesthetic preclinical training.

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.

Local anesthetics injection therapy for musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Therapeutic injections with local anesthetics (TLA) are widespread and are used for various symptoms of the musculoskeletal system. The aim of the present project was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TLA in the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders.

METHODS

Systematic literature search for controlled clinical trials (Medline, Cochrane, CAMbase, hand search of references) without language limitation; independent screening of the search results (n=3200 hits), abstract reading, and full-text analysis by 2 reviewers. Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed study quality. Meta-analysis was calculated for studies using a continuous scale for pain assessment.

RESULTS

Twenty-four controlled trials were included in this review. In almost all studies no primary outcome measure was defined and the overall study quality was low. The qualitative data analysis revealed no clear trend for or against TLA. The meta-analysis of 12 studies showed no significant difference in pain reduction for TLA compared with control treatments consisting of saline injections or other substances, oral analgesics, or nonpharmacological interventions (standardized mean difference -0.31, 95% confidence interval, -0.75 to 0.14). Minor adverse side effects were reported in 7 studies in both the TLA and the control groups with no trend for one of the groups to be safer.

DISCUSSION

Despite the widespread use of TLA for musculoskeletal disorders in daily practice, available data are sparse and of low quality and, therefore, do not allow a final recommendation. High-quality studies are needed to close the gap between common practice and research.