Comparison of efficacy among various topical anesthetics: An approach towards painless injections in periodontal surgery

Comparing the Efficacy of a Compound Topical Anesthetic Versus Benzocaine: A Pilot Study

To compare the effectiveness of a combination of 10% lidocaine, 10% prilocaine, and 4% tetracaine versus 20% benzocaine for use as a topical anesthetic agent prior to dental injections. A double-blind randomized prospective clinical trial was conducted with 26 participants receiving a topical anesthetic of 20% benzocaine (control) and 26 participants receiving a compound topical anesthetic mixture of 10% lidocaine, 10% prilocaine, and 4% tetracaine (experimental) prior to a maxillary infiltration injection. The procedure was conducted by 1 operator with the Wand^® injection system. Pain was assessed directly with visual analog scale (VAS) scores and indirectly by measuring changes in heart rate at 4 different time points. Complications associated with the application of the topical anesthetics were also assessed. The experimental group had a significantly higher mean VAS score of 19.5 ± 19.7 mm versus 14.2 ± 14.6 mm for the control group (p < .001). No significant differences in heart rate at any of the 4 measured time points compared with baseline were noted for either group. The experimental group had a significantly higher incidence of complications, including tissue sloughing, when compared with the control group (p < .001). Participants in the control group reported significantly lower VAS scores than those in the experimental group. Both types of topical anesthetic showed similar impacts on alterations to heart rate. No benefits were seen with the use of 10% lidocaine, 10% prilocaine, and 4% tetracaine as a topical anesthetic prior to a maxillary infiltration of local anesthetic when compared with 20% benzocaine.

Efficacy of a Light-cured Tetracaine-based Anesthetic Gel for Rubber Dam Clamp Placement: A Triple-blind Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of a new light-cured anesthetic gel for pain control in adults undergoing rubber dam isolation for the restorative treatment of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This study was a randomized, split-mouth, triple-blind, controlled trial. The sample comprised 50 adults with at least one pair of NCCLs located in the same arch but on opposite sides. Simple randomization defined the tooth to receive the light-cured tetracaine-based anesthetic gel or the placebo gel. After cotton roll isolation, the gels were applied in the gingival tissue around the tooth with the aid of the applicator tip of a syringe, left in place for 15 seconds, and light-cured for 15 seconds. Then, a #212 clamp was positioned on the tooth. If the patient reported pain, the clamp was removed, the patient filled out a pain intensity form (a 0-10 visual analog scale [VAS] and a 0-4 verbal rating scale [VRS]) and an injectable anesthetic was applied before rubber dam isolation for the restorative procedure. The absolute risk, intensity of pain, and need for rescue anesthesia were analyzed by the McNemar test and the Wilcoxon signed rank test (α=5%).

RESULTS

The odds ratio [OR] for pain (OR=3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.1 to 14.6; p=0.03) showed lower reports of pain for the light-cured anesthetic gel. One in five patients will benefit from placement of the light-cured anesthetic gel. On average, pain intensity was one VAS unit lower in those using the light-cured anesthetic gel than in those using the placebo gel. For the VRS, the pain intensity for the light-cured anesthetic gel was 0.4 units lower than the pain intensity for the placebo gel (95% CI=-0.9 to 0.07). The OR for rescue anesthesia was 2.5 (95% CI=0.7 to 10.9; p=0.18).

CONCLUSIONS

The light-cured, tetracaine-based anesthetic gel reduced the absolute risk of pain by 20% in NCCLs.

Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of two anesthetic gels (2% lignocaine and 20% benzocaine) in reducing pain during administration of local anesthesia - A randomized controlled trial

Background and Aims

Topical anesthetic agents are widely used in the field of pediatric dentistry to reduce pain and apprehension during administration of local anesthesia. Various topical anesthetic agents are available, among which the most commonly used ones are lignocaine and benzocaine. Hence we planned this study to compare and evaluate the effectiveness of topical anesthesia on needle insertion pain during administration of inferior alveolar nerve block.

Material and Methods

This double blind clinical study included 30 children of 4-8 years of age who were divided equally into two groups: Group A-2% lignocaine hydrochloride gel (Lox 2%) and Group B-20% benzocaine gel (ProGel-B). The intervention involved assessment of pain perception by the child during administration of inferior alveolar nerve block. The child's pain assessment was done using modified Wong-Baker pain rating scale. The ratings were subjected to statistical analysis.

Results

In Group A, 6.7% (N = 1) showed slight pain, 66.7% (N = 10) showed moderate pain, and 26.7% (N = 4) showed severe pain. In Group B, 46.7% (N = 7) showed no pain, 46% (N = 7) showed slight pain, and 6.7% (N = 1) showed moderate pain on needle insertion. (P value -0.000).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that there is a highly significant difference between the topical anesthetic effectiveness of 2% lignocaine and 20% benzocaine on needle insertion pain in inferior alveolar nerve block. Twenty percent benzocaine showed better results than 2% lignocaine in reducing the needle insertion pain.

Comparative Evaluation of Pain Scores during Periodontal Probing with or without Anesthetic Gels

Context. The initial periodontal examination which includes full-mouth periodontal probing is one of the discomforting procedures for a patient. Aim. To evaluate the efficacy of two local anesthetic gels in the reduction of pain during periodontal probing using Florida probe in CGP patients in comparison with manual probing. Materials and Methods. Ninety systemically healthy patients with moderate to severe CGP patients were recruited. In each patient, the quadrants were randomly assigned to manual probing with UNC-15 probe, probing with Florida probe, and Florida probing with lidocaine 10% gel and with benzocaine 20% gel. In the quadrants undergoing probing with anesthetic gels, the sites were isolated and the gel was injected using syringe and a blunt-end cannula. Pain was measured using 10 mm horizontal VAS. Statistical Analysis. The analysis was carried out using SPSS version 18. The comparison of mean VAS scores was done using repeated measures ANOVA with post hoc Bonferroni test. Results. Mean VAS for manual probing was significantly more than Florida probing. Further, the mean VAS score for Florida probing was higher than the two gels. Conclusion. It is suggested that the gels might be useful in reducing pain experienced during full-mouth periodontal probing in patients with CGP.