Inferior alveolar nerve block for the treatment of teeth presenting with irreversible pulpitis: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis

Comparing the Efficacy of Twin Mix and Lidocaine for Inferior Alveolar Nerve Blocks in Patients With Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis

This randomized, active-controlled, double-blind, prospective clinical trial evaluated the anesthetic efficacy of 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine versus an admixture of 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 1 mL of 4 mg dexamethasone (Twin mix) for inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANBs) in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP) of the mandibular molars. Seventy-eight patients with SIP of mandibular molars were randomly allocated to the 2 groups of 39 subjects. All patients were required to have profound lip numbness within 10 minutes of local anesthetic deposition. The efficacy of pulpal anesthesia was confirmed by absence of pain or mild pain (Heft-Parker visual analogue scale ≤54 mm) during access cavity preparation and placement of glide path files. The collected data were subjected to independent t test, chi-square test, and Fisher exact test using SPSS software version 20.0 at a significance level of 0.05. IANB success rates for the lidocaine group and the Twin mix group was 66% and 68% respectively, which was not a statistically significant difference (p > .05). This study demonstrated that the anesthetic efficacy of Twin mix was equivalent to 2% lidocaine for IANBs in teeth with SIP.

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.

Case-control study of mandibular canal branching and tooth-related inflammatory lesions

OBJECTIVES

Morphological variations of mandibular canals increase the risk of neurovascular damage and bleeding during surgical procedures by decreasing the predictability of the inferior alveolar neurovascular bundle location. To improve the predictability with such variations, the present study aimed to verify the possibility of a relationship between mandibular canal branches (MCBs) and tooth-related inflammatory lesions, using trough cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) examinations.

METHODS

The sample comprised 150 age and sex-matched examinations (50 cases and 100 controls) from two databases. The CBCT examinations were grouped by the presence of MCBs starting in the mandibular body regions as the outcome variable. Tooth-related inflammatory lesions and measurements of gray levels in the posterior region of the alveolar ridge were assessed in both groups. A multiple logistic regression analysis was applied to verify the relationships between MCBs and independent variables (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Occurrence of tooth-related inflammatory lesions increased the risk of MCBs in the mandibular body regions (p < 0.001; OR 11.640; 95% CI 4.327-31.311). High-contrast images had a weaker association with MCBs (p = 0.002; OR 1.002; 95% CI 1.002-1.003). The most frequent tooth-related inflammatory lesions in both groups were endodontic (34 lesions; 45.94% of the total lesions). Most of the tooth-related inflammatory lesions related to MCBs were endodontic (20 cases) and combined endodontic and periodontal inflammation (20 cases).

CONCLUSIONS

An association was observed between MCBs in the mandibular body regions and tooth-related inflammatory lesions. Inflammatory lesions of endodontic origin are most often associated with MCBs.

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.