Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine最新文献

Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is a chronic oral disorder of unknown etiology which presents therapeutic challenges. Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) has been studied as a potential treatment for BMS. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of ALA compared to that of placebo or other interventions in individuals with BMS. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) using ALA to treat BMS were identified from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science up to February 3, 2021. The assessment of the risk of bias in the included studies was based on the Cochrane guidelines. The primary outcome evaluated was the visual analog scale (VAS) pain intensity. ALA was compared with placebo, clonazepam, gabapentin, pregabalin, ALA plus gabapentin, capsaicin, Biotène^®, and laser therapy. Altogether, 137 records were scanned for inclusion/exclusion, and nine RCTs (two unclear and seven at high risk of bias) were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses, with a total of 594 patients with BMS included in this review. All studies reported an improvement in VAS pain scores ranging from -0.72 to -2.77. Meta-analysis results showed a non-significant reduction in pain intensity for ALA (P = 0.616) compared to that of placebo on a VAS of 0-10. Patients taking ALA were 1.923 times more likely to show an improvement in self-reported BMS symptoms (P = 0.031) than those in the placebo group. Clonazepam and pregabalin showed a significant VAS pain reduction of 4.08 and 4.68 (P < 0.001), respectively, compared to that with ALA. Although ALA intervention provided a non-significant improvement in the pain score and was more likely to produce a reduction in BMS symptoms, the evidence was of low quality. Further research is needed to establish clear guidelines for the use of ALA for BMS treatment.

Background: Awake fiberoptic intubation (AFOI) is the procedure of choice for securing the airway in patients with a difficult airway when undergoing surgeries under general anesthesia. An ideal drug would not only provide conscious sedation but also maintain spontaneous ventilation, smooth intubation conditions, and stable hemodynamics. We compared the effects of dexmedetomidine alone and dexmedetomidine in combination with fentanyl at a dose lower than the standard dose for achieving conscious sedation during AFOI in difficult airway patients undergoing oral cancer and dental surgeries.

Methods: We included 68 adult patients undergoing AFOI. The patients were randomized in two groups, wherein Group D received intravenous dexmedetomidine 1 µg/kg and Group DF received dexmedetomidine 0.5 µg/kg and fentanyl 1 µg/kg. The outcomes measured were airway obstruction score, intubation scores, fiberoptic intubation comfort score, sedation score, and hemodynamic variables.

Results: Low-dose dexmedetomidine with fentanyl showed similar results as those with the standard dose of dexmedetomidine in terms of airway obstruction, vocal cord movement, degree of cough, degree of limb movements, and intubation comfort. However, the sedation achieved and incidence of hypotension and bradycardia were higher in Group D than in Group DF.

Conclusions: A low dose of dexmedetomidine-fentanyl provides satisfactory intubation conditions as those with a standard dose of dexmedetomidine in AFOI, thereby avoiding bradycardia, hypotension, and sedation.

Background: To compare the anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration (BI) (1.7 ml) versus intraligamentary (IL) injection containing 0.4 ml of 4% articaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine after an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 1.7 ml 2% lidocaine in the first and second mandibular molars diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis (IP).

Methods: One hundred subjects diagnosed with IP of either the mandibular first (n = 50) or second molars (n = 50) and failed profound anesthesia following an IANB were selected. They randomly received either the IL or BI techniques of anesthesia. Pain scores on a 170 mm Heft-Parker visual analog scale were recorded initially, before, and during supplemental injections. Furthermore, pulse rate was measured before and after each supplemental injection. During the access cavity preparation and initial filing, no or mild pain was assumed to indicate anesthetic success. The chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U test, and independent samples t-test were used for the analyses.

Results: The overall success rates were 80% in the IL group and 74% in the BI group, with no significant difference (P = 0.63). In the first molars, there was no significant difference between the two techniques (P = 0.088). In the second molars, IL injection resulted in a significantly higher success rate (P = 0.017) than BI. IL injection was statistically more successful (P = 0.034) in the second molars (92%) than in the first molars (68%). However, BI was significantly more successful (P = 0.047) in the first molars (88%) than in the second molars (64%). The mean pulse rate increase was significantly higher in the IL group than in the BI group (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Both the IL and BI techniques were advantageous when used as supplemental injections. However, more favorable outcomes were observed when the second molars received IL injection and the first molars received BI.

Background: Low-dose dexmedetomidine may be a suitable alternative to opioids for pediatric ambulatory procedures under general anesthesia (GA). However, the recovery profile remains unclear. Herein, we aimed to evaluate the effects of low-dose dexmedetomidine on the recovery profile of children.

Methods: Seventy-two children undergoing ambulatory oral rehabilitation under GA were randomly and equally distributed into two groups (D and F). Group D received an infusion of dexmedetomidine 0.25 µg/kg for 4 min for induction, followed by maintenance of 0.4 µg/kg/h. Group F received an infusion of fentanyl 1 µg/kg over 4 min for induction, followed by maintenance at 1 µg/kg/h. The primary outcome was the extubation time. The secondary outcomes were awakening time, end-tidal sevoflurane (ET-Sevo) requirement, change in hemodynamic parameters, Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario pain scale (CHEOPS) score, length of PACU stay, and incidence of adverse events.

Results: Statistically significant differences were observed in the recovery profile between the groups: the median time for extubation was 3.65 (3.44-6.2) vs. 6.25 (4.21-7) minutes in groups D vs. F (P = 0.001), respectively, while the corresponding awakening times were 19 (18.75-21) and 22.5 (22-24) minutes, respectively (P < 0.001). The mean ET-Sevo was low in group D (1.1 vs. 1.2; P < 0.001). The heart rate was significantly low across all time points in group D, without resulting in bradycardia. The median RASS and CHEOPS scores were also significantly lower in group D. No significant differences were observed in the mean arterial pressure, incidence of adverse events, or length of PACU stay.

Conclusion: Low-dose dexmedetomidine was more effective than fentanyl as an opioid substitute at providing a better recovery profile in pediatric ambulatory oral rehabilitation under GA. Dexmedetomidine also significantly reduced sevoflurane consumption without causing adverse events or prolonging hospital stay.

Background: Postoperative endodontic pain is an enigma for the dentist. This study aimed to evaluate the analgesic effect of 300 mg gabapentin or 75 mg pregabalin in reducing postoperative endodontic pain compared with a placebo.

Methods: Ninety patients who needed root canal treatment with an initial numerical rating scale (NRS) pain score of > 4 (T0) were randomly divided into three groups (n=30). Patients were then administered either 300 mg gabapentin (group A), 75 mg pregabalin (group B), or a placebo (group C) 30 min prior to the start of endodontic treatment. A single operator performed single-visit endodontics, and pain was evaluated immediately after endodontic treatment (T1) and at 4 h (T2), 8 h (T3), 12 h (T4), 24 h (T5), 48 h (T6), and 72 h (T7) using the NRS. Ibuprofen/paracetamol (400 mg/325 mg) was administered as a rescue dose if needed.

Results: Pregabalin performed significantly better when compared with gabapentin at all time points except at 72 h after treatment (P=0.170). The placebo group showed significantly higher pain scores than the other two groups. The percentage of pain relief was maximum for pregabalin (92.1%), followed by gabapentin (87.6%) and placebo (69.1%) at 72 h after treatment completion.

Conclusion: This study showed that pretreatment with a single dose of pregabalin and gabapentin both had greater analgesic effects than a placebo. They can be effectively used to reduce postoperative endodontic pain.

Background: Dental pain management is an important aspect of patient management in pediatric dentistry. Articaine is considered the most successful anesthetic agent for infiltration anesthesia. Buffered articaine has been observed to have faster onset and longer duration of action with less pain on injection. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare pain on injection, onset of action, and pain during extraction using buffered (using Sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO₃)) and non-buffered 4% articaine (with 1:100000 adrenaline) infiltrations for primary maxillary molar extractions in 4-10-year-old children.

Methods: Seventy children who required extraction of maxillary primary molars were enrolled in this triple-blind randomized study. Children undergoing extraction were randomly divided into two groups, with 35 in each group. The study group was the buffered articaine group; the control group was the non-buffered articaine group. Buccal and palatal infiltrations were administered with either buffered or non-buffered articaine. Subjective evaluation was done for pain on injection, pain during extraction using Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBFPR) and onset of anesthesia in seconds. Pain on injection, pain during extraction were objectively evaluated using Sound Eye Motor (SEM) scale and onset of anesthesia was also evaluated objectively by pricking with sharp dental probe.

Results: The outcome was, significantly less pain on injection and significantly faster onset of anesthesia with significantly less pain during extraction for both subjective and objective evaluations in the buffered articaine group. Subgroup analysis was also performed and it showed variable results, with only significant difference for WBFPR scores in age subgroup 4-7 years for palatal infiltration.

Conclusion: Less pain on injection, faster onset of anesthesia, and less pain during extraction were observed when buffered articaine was used for maxillary primary molar extraction.

Background: Nonobstetric surgery is sometimes required during pregnancy, and neck abscess or facial bone fracture surgery cannot be postponed in pregnant women. However, dental surgery can be stressful and can cause inflammation, and the inflammatory response is a well-known major cause of preterm labor. Propofol is an intravenous anesthetic commonly used for general anesthesia and sedation. Studies investigating the effect of propofol on human amnion are rare. The current study investigated the effects of propofol on lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced inflammatory responses in human amnion-derived WISH cells.

Methods: WISH cells were exposed to LPS for 24 h and co-treated with various concentrations of propofol (0.01-1 µg/ml). Cell viability was measured using the MTT assay. Nitric oxide (NO) production was analyzed using a microassay based on the Griess reaction. The protein expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), prostaglandin E2 (PGE 2), p38, and phospho-p38 was analyzed using western blotting.

Results: Propofol did not affect the viability and NO production of WISH cells. Co-treatment with LPS and propofol reduced COX-2 and PGE₂ protein expression and inhibited p38 phosphorylation in WISH cells.

Conclusion: Propofol does not affect the viability of WISH cells and inhibits LPS-induced expression of inflammatory factors. The inhibitory effect of propofol on inflammatory factor expression is likely mediated by the inhibition of p38 activation.

Background: Inflammatory dental diseases that occur during pregnancy can cause preterm labor and/or intrauterine growth restriction. Therefore, proactive treatment of dental diseases is necessary during pregnancy. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a widely used sedative in the dental field, but research on the effect of DEX on pregnancy is currently insufficient. In this study, we investigated the effects of co-treatment with DEX and lipopolysaccharide (LPS) on inflammatory responses in human amnion-derived WISH cells.

Methods: Human amnion-derived WISH cells were treated with 0.001, 0.01, 0.1, and 1 µg/mL DEX with 1 µg/mL LPS for 24 h. Cytotoxicity of WISH cells was evaluated by 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. The protein expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), prostaglandin E₂ (PGE₂), p38, and nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) was examined by western blot analysis. The mRNA expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-1β and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α was analyzed by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction.

Results: Co-treatment with DEX and LPS showed no cytotoxicity in the WISH cells. The mRNA expression of IL-1β and TNF-α decreased after co-treatment with DEX and LPS. DEX and LPS co-treatment decreased the protein expression of COX-2, PGE₂, phospho-p38, and phospho-NF-κB in WISH cells.

Conclusion: Co-treatment with DEX and LPS suppressed the expression of COX-2 and PGE₂, as well as pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1β and TNF-α in WISH cells. In addition, the anti-inflammatory effect of DEX and LPS co-treatment was mediated by the inhibition of p38/NF-κB activation.

The high success rate of dental treatment is dependent on the cooperation of pediatric patients during procedures. Dental treatment often causes pain, particularly in children. The factors in providing treatment to pediatric patients include the characteristics and location of the tooth, profoundness of the anesthesia including the type of local anesthetic, and cooperation of the patient. Previous studies have examined several techniques to successfully achieve profound pulpal anesthesia in maxillary permanent teeth. The dentist should select the injection technique to be used based on patient needs. In children, either buccal with palatal injections or buccal with intra-septal injections may be used to anesthetize the permanent maxillary first molar. Buccal with palatal injections are commonly used prior to routine maxillary dental procedures. Currently, there are only a few studies on the employment of buccal with intra-septal injections to anesthetize permanent maxillary first molars in pediatric patients. This review will focus on efficacy of buccal with palatal versus buccal with intra-septal pulpal anesthesia of the permanent maxillary first molars in pediatric patients and aim to determine which technique should be used during routine dental procedures.

Introduction: This clinical trial aimed to evaluate the anesthetic effect of the addition of 2 mg (4 mg/ml) of dexamethasone to 2% lidocaine (plain or with 1:80,000 epinephrine). The solutions were injected for a primary inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) to provide mandibular anesthesia for the endodontic treatment of mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

Methods: In a double-blinded setup, 124 patients randomly received either of the following injections: 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine, 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine mixed with 2 mg dexamethasone, or plain 2% lidocaine mixed with 2 mg dexamethasone, which were injected as a primary IANB. Ten minutes after injection, patients with profound lip numbness underwent electric and thermal pulp sensibility tests. Patients who responded positively to the tests were categorized as "failed" anesthesia and received supplemental anesthesia. The remaining patients underwent endodontic treatment using a rubber dam. Anesthetic success was defined as "no pain or faint/weak/mild pain" during endodontic access preparation and instrumentation (HP visual analog scale score < 55 mm). The effect of the anesthetic solutions on the maximum change in heart rate was also evaluated. The Pearson chi-square test at 5% and 1% significance was used to analyze anesthetic success rates.

Results: The 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine, 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine mixed with 2 mg dexamethasone, and plain 2% lidocaine mixed with 2 mg dexamethasone groups had anesthetic success rates of 34%, 59%, and 29%, respectively. The addition of dexamethasone resulted in significantly better results (P < 0.001, χ² = 9.07, df = 2).

Conclusions: The addition of dexamethasone to 2% lidocaine with epinephrine, administered as an IANB, can improve the anesthetic success rates during the endodontic management of symptomatic mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis.