Natthamet Wongsirichat

Effect of single dose preoperative intramuscular dexamethasone injection on lower impacted third molar surgery

This study aimed to investigate the effects of dexamethasone intramuscular injection 1h preoperatively, in reducing facial swelling, pain and trismus after lower impacted third molar (LITM) surgery. Twenty healthy Thai patients with both LITM surgical extraction were enrolled in the study. The washout period was 1 month after the first operation. Clinical assessment of the facial swelling, pain and trismus were measured before and after operation for 7 days and the patients total analgesic consumption was recorded. The level of significance used in the statistical decisions was P<0.05. Preoperative intramuscular injection of single-dose 8mg dexamethasone reduced postoperative swelling after LITM surgical extraction significantly on the second postoperative day, but immediately after surgery and on day 7 after the surgical extraction, no significant difference was found between the dexamethasone and control groups. Dexamethasone also reduced postoperative pain after LITM surgical extraction significantly on postoperative days 2 and 7. Additionally, the amount of paracetamol decreased significantly. There were no significant differences in trismus in the study and control groups 7 days after LITM operation. Single-dose intramuscular injection of dexamethasone can reduce postoperative facial swelling and pain, without affecting trismus after LITM surgical extraction.

Comparative study of the effect of dexamethasone injection and consumption in lower third molar surgery

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of intramuscular (IM) injection and consumption of 8 mg dexamethasone in patients after lower third molar (LTM) surgery. 20 healthy Thai patients, average age 20 years, with bilateral LTM removal were recruited for this study, a double blinded, paired sample clinical trial. The washout period was 1 month after the first operation. Clinical assessment of facial swelling, pain and maximum mouth opening were measured before and after operation for 7 days. No significant difference was found in facial swelling between IM injection and consumption of 8 mg dexamethasone after LTM surgery (paired t test P>0.05). The visual analogue scale scores for pain assessment showed no significant difference between IM injection and consumption of dexamethasone (paired t test P>0.05). The results conclude that IM injection or consumption of dexamethasone after LTM surgery can be used to control facial swelling, pain and trismus.

The efficacy of an elevated concentration of lidocaine HCl in impacted lower third molar surgery

Background There have been few studies on the effect of an elevated concentration of lidocaine hydrochloride in the surgical removal of an impacted lower third molar. This study aimed to examine the efficacy of 4% lidocaine along with 1:100,000 epinephrine compared to 2% lidocaine along with 1:100,000 epinephrine as inferior alveolar nerve block for the removal of an impacted lower third molar. Methods This single-blind study involved 31 healthy patients (mean age: 23 y; range: 19-33 y) with symmetrically impacted lower third molars as observed on panoramic radiographs. Volunteers required 2 surgical interventions by the same surgeon with a 3-week washout period. The volunteers were assigned either 4% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as local anesthetic during each operation. Results We recorded the time of administration, need for additional anesthetic administration, total volume of anesthetic used. We found that the patients preference for either of the 2 types of local anesthetic were significantly different (P < 0.05). However, the extent of pulpal anesthesia, surgical duration, and duration of soft tissue anesthesia were not significantly different. Conclusions Our study suggested that inferior alveolar nerve block using 4% lidocaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a local anesthetic was clinically more effective than that using 2% lidocaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine; the surgical duration was not affected, and no clinically adverse effects were encountered.

Hemodynamic changes associated with a novel concentration of lidocaine HCl for impacted lower third molar surgery

Background The authors studied the hemodynamic effect influent by using the novel high concentration of lidocaine HCl for surgical removal impacted lower third molar. The objective of this study was to evaluate the hemodynamic change when using different concentrations of lidocaine in impacted lower third molar surgery. Methods Split mouth single blind study comprising 31 healthy patients with a mean age of 23 years (range 19-33 years). Subjects had symmetrically impacted lower third molars as observed on panoramic radiograph. Each participant required 2 surgical interventions by the same surgeon with a 3-week washout period washout period. The participants were alternately assigned one of two types of local anesthetic (left or right) for the first surgery, then the other type of anesthetic for the second surgery. One solution was 4% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and the other was 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. A standard IANB with 1.8 ml volume was used. Any requirement for additional anesthetic and patient pain intra-operation was recorded. Post-operatively, patient was instructed to fill in the patient report form for any adverse effect and local anesthetic preference in terms of intra-operative pain. This form was collected at the seven day follow up appointment. Results In the 4% lidocaine group, the heart rate increased during the first minute post-injection (P < 0.05). However, there was no significant change in arterial blood pressure during the operation. In the 2% lidocaine group, there was a significant increase in arterial blood pressure and heart rate in the first minute following injection for every procedure. When the hemodynamic changes in each group were compared, the 4% lidocaine group had significantly lower arterial blood pressure compared to the 2% lidocaine group following injection. Post-operatively, no adverse effects were observed by the operator and patient in either local anesthetic group. Patients reported less pain intra-operation in the 4% lidocaine group compared with the 2% lidocaine group (P < .05). Conclusions Our results suggest that a 4% concentration of lidocaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine has better clinical efficacy than 2% lidocaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine when used for surgical extraction of lower third molars. Neither drug had any clinical adverse effects.

4% lidocaine versus 4% articaine for inferior alveolar nerve block in impacted lower third molar surgery

Background No study has compared lidocaine with articaine, each at a concentration of 4% and combined with epinephrine. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 4% lidocaine with that of 4% articaine, with a concentration of 1:100,000 epinephrine added to each, in an inferior alveolar nerve block for surgery on impacted lower third molars. Method This study was conducted at the Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University in Bangkok, Thailand. The randomized, single-blind, comparative split-mouth study was carried out in patients with symmetrically impacted lower third molars, as identified on panoramic radiographs. Each patient underwent surgery for the removal of the lower third molars by the same surgeon under local anesthesia at two separate visits, 3 weeks apart. The onset and duration of local anesthesia, intra-operative pain, surgical duration, and number of additional anesthetics administered were recorded. Results The subjective and objective onset of action for the local anesthetics showed statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). However, the intra-operative pain, surgical duration, duration of local anesthesia, and number of additional anesthetics administered did not show statistically significant differences. Conclusion The use of 4% articaine for the inferior alveolar nerve block was clinically more effective in the onset of subjective and objective anesthesia as compared with the use of 4% lidocaine. Based on the pain scores from the visual analogue scale, 4% lidocaine provided more analgesia during the procedure, and patients noted less intra-operative pain than with 4% articaine; however, the difference was not clinically significant.

The efficacy of dexamethasone injection on postoperative pain in lower third molar surgery

Background Surgery on the lower impacted third molar usually involves trauma in the highly vascularized loose connective tissue area, leading to inflammatory sequelae including postoperative pain, swelling, and general oral dysfunction during the immediate post-operative phase. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of preoperative injection of a single dose of 8 mg dexamethasone for postoperative pain control in lower third molar surgery. Methods A controlled, randomized, split-mouth, prospective study involving lower third molar surgery was performed in 31 patients. The randomized sampling group was preoperatively injected, after local anesthesia, with a single dose of dexamethasone (8 mg in 2 ml) through the pterygomandibular space; 2 ml of normal saline (with no dexamethasone) was injected as a placebo. Results The pain VAS score was significantly different on the day of the operation compared to the first post-operative day (P = 0.00 and 0.01, respectively), but it was not significantly different on the third and seventh postoperative day between the control and study groups. There was a significant reduction in swelling on the second postoperative day, and a difference between the second postoperative day and baseline value in the study group (P < 0.05). Trismus was highly significantly different on the second postoperative day and between baseline and second postoperative day between the groups (P = 0.04 and 0.02, respectively). Descriptive statistics and independent-samples t- test were used to assess the significance of differences. Conclusions Injection of 8 mg dexamethasone into the pterygomandibular space effectively reduced the postoperative pain and other postoperative sequalae.

Area extent anaesthesia from buccal nerve block.

This study investigated the extent of complete anaesthesia from buccal nerve block. 40 healthy Thai patients (20 males; 20 females) requiring buccal nerve block for surgery were studied. After the buccal nerve was blocked, the buccal mucosa was explored using a sharp probe to map out the extent of anaesthesia. The operation was carried out after inferior alveolar and lingual nerve block. The extent of the anaesthesia was mainly from the retromolar area to the second molar, followed by the first molar to the second premolar, whilst the first premolar to the central incisor was the area least affected. An important finding of this study was that the anaesthetized extent of some patients extended to the anterior region on the same quadrant. This study showed the affected areas of buccal nerve anaesthesia extended through the buccal mucosa from the first premolar to the central incisor in some patients. It can serve as another informative indication for lower anterior surgery.

Dexamethasone injection into the pterygomandibular space in lower third molar surgery

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of 8mg dexamethasone injection into the pterygomandibular space on the postoperative sequelae of lower third molar surgery. A prospective, randomized, controlled, split-mouth study was designed involving 62 lower third molar extractions (31 patients). Prior to surgery, the study group received 2ml of 4mg/ml (8mg) dexamethasone injection through the pterygomandibular space following local anaesthesia; the control group received 2ml normal saline injection. Facial swelling, mouth opening, pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS), and the number of analgesics consumed were assessed. Descriptive statistics and the independent-samples t-test were used to compare the two groups at P<0.05. There was a significant reduction in swelling on day 2 postoperative in the dexamethasone group. Mouth opening was also significantly greater on day 2 in the dexamethasone group. The VAS pain score was significantly lower on the day of the operation and first postoperative day in the dexamethasone group, but did not differ significantly between the groups on the other postoperative days. The injection of 8mg dexamethasone into the pterygomandibular space was effective in reducing postoperative swelling, limited mouth opening, and pain following impacted lower third molar extraction.

Double versus single cartridge of 4% articaine infiltration into the retro-molar area for lower third molar surgery

Background There are no studies regarding 4% articaine infiltration injection into the retro-molar area for an impacted lower third molar (LITM) surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of infiltration using 1.7 ml (single cartridge: SC) of 4% articaine versus 3.4 ml (double cartridges: DC) of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in LITM surgery. Method This study involved 30 healthy patients with symmetrical LITM. The patients were assigned to receive either a DC or SC of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a local anesthetic for each operation. Onset, duration, profoundness, need for additional anesthetic administration, total volume of anesthetic used, vitality of the tooth, and pain score during operation were recorded. Results The DC of 4 % articaine had a significantly higher success rate (83.3%) than did the SC (53.3%; P < 0.05). The duration of soft tissue anesthesia was longer in the DC group. The intra-operative pain was higher in the SC group with a significant (P < 0.05) requirement for a supplementary local anesthetic. Conclusion We concluded that using DC for the infiltration injection had a higher success rate, longer duration of anesthesia, less intra-operative pain, and a lower amount of additional anesthesia than SC in the surgical removal of LITM. We recommend that a DC of 4% articaine and a 1:100,000 epinephrine infiltration in the retro-molar region can be an alternative anesthetic for LITM surgery.

Complications associated with intravenous midazolam and fentanyl sedation in patients undergoing minor oral surgery

Background Anxiety control remains an important concern in dental practice. We evaluated the incidence, nature, and sequelae of complications during and after minor oral surgeries performed under intravenous midazolam and fentanyl sedation using the titration technique. Methods The medical records of patients who had undergone minor oral surgeries under moderate intravenous midazolam and fentanyl sedation at our institution between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2015 were retrospectively evaluated. Age, sex, body mass index, medical history, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, indications for sedation, amount of sedative used, surgical duration, and recovery time were evaluated for all patients. Results In total, 107 patients aged 9–84 years were included. ASA class I and class II were observed for 56.1% and 43.9% patients, respectively. Complications associated with sedation occurred in 11 (10.2%) patients. There were no serious adverse events. Oxygen saturation reached 95% during the procedure in six patients; this was successfully managed by stimulating the patients to take a deep breath. Two patients exhibited deep sedation and one exhibited paradoxical excitement. After the procedure, one patient experienced nausea without vomiting and one exhibited a prolonged recovery time. The surgical procedures were completed in all patients. Obesity was found to be significantly associated with sedation-related complications. Conclusions Our results suggest that complications associated with intravenous midazolam and fentanyl sedation using the titration technique for minor oral surgeries are mostly minor and can be successfully managed with no prolonged sequelae.