Giath Gazal

Pain and anxiety management for pediatric dental procedures using various combinations of sedative drugs: A review.

For fearful and uncooperative children behavioral management techniques are used. In order to control the pain and anxiety in pedodontic patients, pharmacologic sedation, anesthesia and analgesia are commonly used. Midazolam is commonly used as an oral sedation agent in children; it has several features such as safety of use, quick onset and certain degree of amnesia that makes it a desirable sedation agent in children. This review paper discusses various aspects of oral midazolam, ketamine and their combinations in conscious sedation including, advantages of oral route of sedation, pharmacokinetics, range of oral doses, and antagonists for clinical dental treatment procedures.

Effectiveness of gaseous and intravenous inductions on children's anxiety and distress during extraction of teeth under general anesthesia

Context: Anxiety and distress regarding dental treatment is a major issue for dental patients and can be exaggerated in pediatric dental patients. Aims: The aim was to investigate how different methods of induction for general anesthesia affect children′s distress for dental procedures such as extraction of teeth. Subjects and Methods: This was an observational clinical study conducted at Manchester University Dental Hospital. The induction of anesthesia in children was achieved with either intravenous (I.V.) or a gaseous induction. The Modified Child Smiley Faces Scales were completed for children at various times intervals. Statistical Analysis Used: There were statistically significant differences between the mean distress scores for the I.V. and inhalation groups (P values from independent t-test: P < 0.001) was applied. Results: In gaseous induction group, the number of children who scored severe and very severe distress was greater than those who were in I.V. group. Gaseous induction was used for 23 children. Preoperatively, 56.5% children were in very severe distress, 17.4% in severe distress, 13% in moderate distress, 8.7% in mild distress and only one (4.3%) showed no distress. For I.V. induction, 11.2% children were in very severe distress, 9% in severe distress, and 9.6% in moderate distress, 24.2% in mild distress and 46.1% showed no distress. Conclusions: Gaseous induction anesthesia for extractions of teeth does produce high levels of distress than I.V. induction in children for dental extractions. There was no significant difference between both induction methods in terms of distress levels at the time of recovery and 15 min postoperatively.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of early or delayed treatment upon healing of mandibular fractures: A retrospective study.

Objectives: This study was aimed to assess the impacts of delay treatment of mandibular fracture and its complications. In addition risk variables related such as time to repair, fracture types, substance abuse, causes, surgical management, muddling or complications and duration of clinic stay were also evaluated. Materials and Methods: The data of patients attending the Newcastle General Hospital, UK for the management of mandibular fractures were probed. This retrospective clinical trial conducted over 6 months, included 91 patients attending trauma operating theatre during weekdays or weekends. Data were analyzed for time to admission and treatment and its relationships to various factors using SPSS version 20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Results: Time to treatment from the point of admission was 31.50 ± 3.83 h during week days that has been significantly more for patients attending the hospital at weekends or nights. Similar trend was observed for total summative time from the incident to treatment analysis. Conclusions: This investigation has demonstrated that the rate of infection and postoperative complications following surgical treatment of mandible fractures can be eased off by reducing the waiting time from presentation to the emergency and to the operating theater.

Comparison of paracetamol, ibuprofen, and diclofenac potassium for pain relief following dental extractions and deep cavity preparations

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of different oral analgesics for relieving pain and distress in adults following the extraction of teeth and deep cavity preparations under local anesthesia. Methods: This randomized controlled study was conducted between November 2015 and May 2016. One hundred and twenty patients were randomly allocated to 3 groups. Forty patients were in the paracetamol (1 gram) group, 40 in the ibuprofen (400 mg) group and 40 in the diclofenac potassium (50 mg) group. Evaluation of the post extraction and deep cavity preparations pain was made by patients immediately postoperatively, 2, 4 and 6 hours postoperatively on standard 100 mm visual analogue scales (VAS). Furthermore, each patient was observed preoperatively and immediately postoperatively for signs of distress by using a 5 point face scale. Results: There were significant decreases in mean pain VAS scores for diclofenac potassium group compared to paracetamol and ibuprofen groups at 4 hours postoperatively (one-way Analysis of Variance: p=0.0001, p=0.001) and 6 hours postoperatively (p=0.04, p=0.005). Changes in distress scores from the preoperative score to the postoperative score were made using the paired sample t-test. There were significant decreases in distress scores between the preoperative and postoperative scores (p=0.0001). Conclusions: Diclofenac potassium was more effective than paracetamol or ibuprofen for reducing postoperative pain associated with tooth extraction and deep cavity preparation. Patients’ distress levels can be alleviated by using preemptive analgesics.

Articaine and mepivacaine buccal infiltration in securing mandibular first molar pulp anesthesia following mepivacaine inferior alveolar nerve block: A randomized, double-blind crossover study.

Aims: A crossover double-blind, randomized study was designed to explore the efficacy of 2% mepivacaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline buccal infiltration and 4% articaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline buccal infiltration following 2% mepivacaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for testing pulp anesthesia of mandibular first molar teeth in adult volunteers. Materials and Methods: A total of 23 healthy adult volunteers received two regimens with at least 1-week apart; one with 4% articaine buccal infiltration and 2% mepivacaine IANB (articaine regimen) and another with 2% mepivacaine buccal infiltration supplemented to 2% mepivacaine IANB (mepivacaine regimen). Pulp testing of first molar tooth was electronically measured twice at baseline, then at intervals of 2 min for the first 10 min, then every 5 min until 45 min postinjection. Anesthetic success was considered when two consecutive maximal stimulation on pulp testing readings without sensation were obtained within 10 min and continuously sustained for 45 min postinjection. Results: In total, the number of no sensations to maximum pulp testing for first molar teeth were significantly higher after articaine regimen than mepivacaine during 45 min postinjection (267 vs. 250 episodes, respectively, P < 0.001), however, both articaine and mepivacaine buccal infiltrations are equally effective in securing anesthetic success for first molar pulp anesthesia when supplemented to mepivacaine IANB injections (P > 0.05). Interestingly, volunteers in the articaine regimen provided faster onset and longer duration (means 2.78 min, 42.22 min, respectively) than mepivacaine regimen (means 4.26 min, 40.74 min, respectively) for first molar pulp anesthesia (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Supplementary mepivacaine and articaine buccal infiltrations produced similar successful first molar pulp anesthesia following mepivacaine IANB injections in volunteers. Articaine buccal infiltration produced faster onset and longer duration than mepivacaine buccal infiltration following mepivacaine IANB injections.

Comparison of speed of action and injection discomfort of 4% articaine and 2% mepivacaine for pulpal anesthesia in mandibular teeth: A randomized, double-blind cross-over trial.

Objective: To compare the injection pain and speed of local anesthetic effect induced by tissue infiltration of mepivacaine 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000 versus articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 in securing mandibular first molar pulp anesthesia. Materials and Methods: Totally, 25 patients were recruited in a crossover, randomized, double-blind study. Each subject received injections of mepivacaine 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000 as inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) supplemented with either articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 (septocaine) or mepivacaine 2% buccal infiltration (BI) injection on two visits. The time of first numbness to associated lip, tongue and tooth was recorded by asking the participant directly and using electrical pulp tester. Anesthetic success was considered when two consecutive maximal stimulation on pulp testing readings without sensation. The patients rated the pain of infiltration using a 100 mm visual analog scale immediately after receiving each injection. The pain scores were compared using the paired t-test. Results: There were significant differences in the meantime of first numbness to associated lip and tooth of volunteers between mepivacaine and articaine BI groups P = 0.03 and 0.002. Volunteers in articaine group recorded earlier lip and teeth numbness than those in mepivacaine group. There were significant differences between the mean pain scores for volunteers in the post IANB and postbuccal injection groups (t-test: P <0.001). Mepivacaine IANB injection was significantly more painful than articaine/mepivacaine buccal injection. Conclusions: About 4% articaine was faster than 2% mepivacaine (both with 1:100,000 adrenaline) in anesthetizing the pulps of lower molar teeth after BIs. Earlier lip and teeth numbness were recorded in articaine group. Articaine and mepivacaine BIs were more comfortable than mepivacaine IANB injections.

A randomized control trial comparing the visual and verbal communication methods for reducing fear and anxiety during tooth extraction

Purpose To evaluate the value of using the visual information for reducing the level of dental fear and anxiety in patients undergoing teeth extraction under LA. Methods A total of 64 patients were indiscriminately allotted to solitary of the study groups following reading the information sheet and signing the formal consent. If patient was in the control group, only verbal information and routine warnings were provided. If patient was in the study group, tooth extraction video was showed. The level of dental fear and anxiety was detailed by the patients on customary 100 mm visual analog scales (VAS), with “no dental fear and anxiety” (0 mm) and “severe dental distress and unease” (100 mm). Evaluation of dental apprehension and fretfulness was made pre-operatively, following visual/verbal information and post-extraction. Results There was a substantial variance among the mean dental fear and anxiety scores for both groups post-extraction (p-value < 0.05). Patients in tooth extraction video group were more comfortable after dental extraction than verbal information and routine warning group. For tooth extraction video group there were major decreases in dental distress and anxiety scores between the pre-operative and either post video information scores or postoperative scores (p-values < 0.05). Younger patients recorded higher dental fear and anxiety scores than older ones (P < 0.05). Conclusion Dental fear and anxiety associated with dental extractions under local anesthesia can be reduced by showing a tooth extraction video to the patients preoperatively.

Effectiveness of benzocaine in reducing deep cavity restoration and post-extraction stress in dental patients

Objectives: To investigate the effectiveness of topical anesthetic, 20% benzocaine in relieving pain and stress in patients following deep cavity restoration and extraction of teeth under local anesthesia (LA). Methods: A prospective clinical trial was conducted from October 2014 until April 2015 at Taibah University, Al Madinah Al Munawarah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Forty-five patients were included in the 20% benzocaine group, and 46 in the normal saline group. Evaluation of the dental stress was made pre-operatively and immediately post-operative treatment using the visual analogue scale (VAS). Furthermore, discomfort of the injections were recorded by the patients after each treatment on standard 100 mm VAS, tagged at the endpoints with “no pain” (0 mm) and “unbearable pain” (100 mm). Results: There were statistically significant differences between the mean stress scores for patients in the benzocaine and normal saline groups post-operatively (p=0.002). There were significant differences between the mean pain scores for patients in the post buccal injection (p=0.001), post palatal injection (p=0.01), and the post inferior alveolar nerve block groups (p=0.02). Buccal, palatal, and inferior alveolar nerve block injections were more painful for patients in the normal saline group than the benzocaine group. Conclusion: This investigation has demonstrated that post-operative stress associated with deep cavity restoration and dental extractions under LA can be reduced by the application of topical anesthetic (20% benzocaine) at the operative site for intra-oral injections.

Comparison of onset anesthesia time and injection discomfort of 4% articaine and 2% mepivacaine during teeth extractions

Objective: To investigate the speed of action and injection discomfort of 4% articaine and 2% mepivacaine for upper teeth extractions. Materials and Methods: Forty-five patients were included in the articaine 4% group, and 45 in the mepivacaine 2% control group. After all injections, soft and hard tissue numbness was objectively gauged by dental probe at intervals of 15 s. Furthermore, the discomfort of the injections were recorded by the patients after each treatment on standard 100 mm visual analog scales, tagged at the endpoints with “no pain” (0 mm) and “unbearable pain” (100 mm). Results: There were significant differences in the meantime of first numbness to associated palatal mucosa and tooth of patients between mepivacaine and articaine buccal infiltration (BI) groups P = 0.01 and 0.01. Patients in the articaine group recorded earlier palatal mucosa and teeth numbness than those in the mepivacaine group. With regards to the discomfort of the needle injections, palatal injection was significantly more painful than BI (t-test: P< 0.001). Articaine buccal injection was significantly more painful than mepivacaine buccal injection (t-test: P<0.001). However, articaine palatal injection was less painful than articaine BI. Clinically, anesthesia onset time was faster in anterior upper teeth than upper middle and posterior teeth. Conclusions: BIs with 4% articaine was faster in achieving palate and teeth anesthesia than 2% mepivacaine for extraction of upper maxillary teeth. Patients in mepivacaine BI and articaine palatal injection groups reported less pain with needle injection. Failure of anesthesia was noticeable with maxillary multiple-rooted teeth.

Role of intraseptal anesthesia for pain-free dental treatment

Pain control during the dental procedure is essentials and challenging. A complete efficacious pulp anesthesia has not been attained yet. The regional anesthesia such as inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) only does not guarantee the effective anesthesia with patients suffering from irreversible pulpitis. This main aim of this review was to discuss various aspects of intraseptal dental anesthesia and its role significance in pain-free treatment in the dental office. In addition, reasons of failure and limitations of this technique have been highlighted. Literature search was conducted for peer-reviewed articles published in English language in last 30 years. Search words such as dental anesthesia, pain control, intraseptal, and nerve block were entered using a web of knowledge and Google scholar databases. Various dental local anesthesia techniques were reviewed. A combination of block anesthesia, buccal infiltration and intraligamentary injection resulted in deep anesthesia (P = 0.003), and higher success rate compared to IANB. For pain-free management of conditions such as irreversible pulpitis, buccal infiltration (4% articaine), and intraosseous injection (2% lidocaine) are better than intraligamentary and IANB injections. Similarly, nerve block is not always effective for pain-free root canal treatment hence, needing supplemental anesthesia. Intraseptal anesthesia is an efficient and effective technique that can be used in maxillary and mandibular adult dentition. This technique is also beneficial when used in conjunction to the regional block or local dental anesthesia.