A clinical comparative study of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to 2% plain lignocaine and 2% lignocaine with 1:200,000 adrenaline as local anesthetic agents for surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars

The influence of Dexmedetomidine as an additive to local anesthetics in dental procedures: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

This review aimed to assess if the use of dexmedetomidine as an additive to local anesthetics promotes greater safety and efficacy than local anesthetics alone in dental procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

the systematic review was structured according to the PICO strategy and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Studies were included based on the eligibility criteria, and data from the included studies were collected by one author. An additional author reviewed the compilation. Altogether, nine studies were included: eight randomized clinical trials and one controlled clinical trial. Of these, six were related to tooth extraction. Most studies reported the use of lidocaine as the local anesthetic. Levobupivacaine was used in one study.

RESULTS

In total, 352 patients were evaluated. Despite the heterogeneity between studies, it can be suggested that when used as an additive to local anesthetics, dexmedetomidine has the potential to decrease postoperative pain and latency period and prolong anesthetic duration.

CONCLUSION

There are scant reviews that summarizes the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to local anesthetics. These studies can positively impact the lives of the concerned population.

A comparative study of two different doses of dexmedetomedine as an adjuvant to lignocaine in infiltration block for tympanoplasty: a triple-blinded, prospective, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The ideal anesthetic drug choice for local infiltration anesthesia under monitored anesthesia care must provide analgesia and patients' comfort along with a bloodless surgical field for patients. We hypothesized that dexemedetomidine can provide better visibility of the surgical field at a higher dose of 1 µg/kg than 0.5 µg/kg, along with providing sedation and analgesia.

METHODS

After institutional ethics committee clearance and written informed consent, this prospective, randomized, triple blind study was conducted on ninety patients, between 18- 65 years who were scheduled for tympanoplasty. The patients were randomly assigned to either the dexmedetomidine (DEX) 0.5 group or the DEX 1.0 group, and received 10 ml solution containing 2% lignocaine with 0.5 µg/kg dexmedetomidine, or the 1 µg/kg dexmedetomidine. The operative surgeon performed local infiltration using standardized 5-point infiltration technique around the auricle. The primary objective was to compare the intraoperative bleeding at the surgical site. The comparison of normally distributed variables was conducted using the Student's t-test, whereas non-normally distributed variables was compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. The analysis of qualitative data was conducted using the chisquare/Fisher's exact test. A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The overall bleeding score was significantly higher in the DEX 0.5 group (3.21 ± 0.727) than the DEX 1.0 group (1.43 ± 0.661) (P value < 0.001). The time to first analgesic requirement and surgeon satisfaction score were also significantly higher in the DEX 1.0 group.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining dexmedetomidine at a dose of 1 µg/kg with 2% lignocaine for infiltration provided improved analgesia and improved the surgical field during tympanoplasty performed under monitored anesthesia care.

A Clinical Study for Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molar under Local Anaesthesia, with and without Ketamine - A Split Mouth Comparative Study

Introduction

Disimpaction is one of the most common operations done by oral and maxillofacial surgeons around the world. Ketamine is a well-known general anaesthetic and short-acting intraoperative analgesic. The aim of this study was to measure the efficacy of anaesthesia using combined treatment with local anaesthetic plus a subanaesthetic dose of ketamine and local anaesthetic alone in bilaterally impacted mandibular third molar surgery.

Methods and Materials

A total of 24 patients who consented were taken up for a split-mouth study. In the control group, surgical extraction of the impacted lower third molar was done using local anaesthesia (lignocaine 2% with 1:80,000 adrenaline) only, and in the study group, local anaesthesia with ketamine extraction was done using ketamine (0.2 mg/kg) along with local anaesthesia (LA). The time of onset and the duration of anaesthesia intraoperatively were recorded using a digital stopwatch. The depth of anaesthesia was noted on the 10th, 30th and 60th min. After extraction, the post-operative pain on the first, fourth, eighth and 12th hour was evaluated using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score rating of 1-10. The pulse was also noted and compared for any differences in either of the groups.

Results

A statistically significant (P < 0.005) difference in result was obtained for the onset, duration, depth and pain score after surgical extraction in both the evaluated groups. The pain index score by the ketamine group was significantly low as compared to the local anaesthesia-only group. Intraoperative onset, duration and depth of anaesthesia obtained had a significant difference.

Discussion

Ketamine can be used as a viable option for surgical third molar extractions with reduced discomfort and post-operative pain.

Does dexmedetomidine combined with levobupivacaine in inferior alveolar nerve blocks among patients undergoing impacted third molar surgery control postoperative morbidity?

Background

Postoperative analgesia (POA) is an important determinant of successful treatment. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) has recently gained attention as a promising adjuvant to local anesthetics (LA). The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of levobupivacaine (LB) as an adjuvant during inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in the extraction of lower impacted third molars (LITM).

Methods

A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, triple-blind, parallel-arm, and clinical study was performed on 50 systemically healthy participants who required removal of an asymptomatic LITM. Using a 1:1 distribution, the participants were randomized into two groups (n = 25). Group L (control group) received 1.8 mL of 0.5% LB and 0.2 mL normal saline (placebo) and Group D (study group) received a blend of 1.8 mL of 0.5% LB and 0.2 mL (20 µg) DEX. The primary outcome variable was the duration of POA and hemodynamic stability, and the secondary variable was the total number of analgesics required postoperatively for up to 72 h. The participants were requested to record the time of rescue analgesic use and the total number of rescue analgesics taken. The area under the curve was plotted for the total number of analgesics administered. The pain was evaluated using the visual analog scale. Data analysis was performed using paired students and unpaired t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-square test, and receiver operating characteristic analysis. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

Results

The latency, profoundness of anesthesia, and duration of POA were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The differences between mean pain scores at 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h were found to be significant (each P = 0.0001). Fewer analgesics were required by participants in group D (2.12 ± 0.33) than in L (4.04 ± 0.67), with a significant difference (P = 0.0001).

Conclusion

Perineurally administered LA with DEX is a safe, effective, and therapeutic approach for improving latency, providing profound POA, and reducing the need for postoperative analgesia.

Efficacy of adding dexmedetomidine to lidocaine to enhance inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis: double-blind randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

This randomized, double-blind study was to determine whether dexmedetomidine (DEX) helped to improve the inferior alveolar nerve block's (IANB) success in patients with asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis (AIP). We hypothesized that adding DEX to lidocaine enhances the anesthetic effect of lidocaine to a satisfactory level by localizing anesthesia in a safer way.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty adult volunteers with AIP in a first or second mandibular molar were randomly assigned to two groups to either receive 1.4 ml 2% plain lidocaine or 1.4 ml 2% lidocaine + 0.4 ml (40 μg) DEX, for standard IANB injection. Access cavity preparation initiated 10-15 min postinjection when the patient reported lower lip numbness and had two negative electric pulp tests (EPTs) with 5-min intervals. Heft-Parker visual analog scale (VAS) was used to report pain in three steps: during caries and dentin removal, access cavity preparation, and canal working-length determinations; EPT and VAS were analyzed by Friedman test; and success rates were analyzed by Mann-Whitney and Fisher's exact test using SPSS software version 20.

RESULTS

Successful anesthesia (defined as no or mild pain during any of steps and no need for additional injection) is obtained in 12% of patients in the lidocaine group, while DEX-lidocaine group increased the success rate of IANB to 72% (p-value = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

DEX significantly increases the anesthetic effect of lidocaine in IANB injection in patients with AIP.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

DEX would be a safe adjunct to lidocaine to increase the success rate in IANB and could be a suitable alternative for conventional vasoconstrictors in sensitive groups.