What Is the Incidence of Anesthesia-Related Adverse Events in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Offices? A Review of 61,237 Sedation Cases From a Large Private Practice Consortium.

BACKGROUND: The safety of the anesthesia team model performed in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) offices has been criticized by professional and mainstream media. PURPOSE: This study aims to assess the incidence of adverse anesthetic events (AEs) associated with the OMS anesthesia team model and identify risk factors associated with AEs. STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE: This was a retrospective cohort study utilizing a patient database from Paradigm Oral Health, Lincoln, Nebraska, a managed service organization (MSO). Subjects included were 14 and older, undergoing open-airway intravenous anesthesia for ambulatory OMS procedures using the OMS anesthesia team model at multiple private practices in the MSO network between June 30, 2010, and September 30, 2022. Exclusion criteria included patients younger than 14 or patients with incomplete medical records. PREDICTOR VARIABLE: Primary predictor variables were age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification system (ASA) score, type of surgical procedure performed, and the types of medications administered during sedation. MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE(S): The presence of an AE. The definition of an AE was modeled on the World Society of Intravenous Anesthesia definition. All AEs were identified through surrogate markers, which were identified through chart review. One example of an AE is ventricular fibrillation, which necessitates the application of medications; here the medication is the surrogate marker. COVARIATES: None. ANALYSES: The data were analyzed using t-tests and χ2 tests. P values ≤ .05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Included in the study were 61,237 sedation cases (53.87% female and 46.13% male), for 56,076 unique patients ranging from 14 to 98 years of age (mean 33.26 ± 18.35). An AE incidence of 3 per 100,000 per year (25 total events) was observed. Neither age, sex, ASA score, nor type of surgical procedure exhibited statistically significant associations with AEs. A statistically significant association was found between AEs and fentanyl (P = .0008). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: This investigation shows a smaller incidence of AEs than previous studies of the OMS anesthesia team model.

Transient bradycardia during local anaesthesia to the oral cavity under intravenous sedation and its associate factors: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Local anaesthesia in dental procedures is generally safe, although the occurrence of transient bradycardia (TB) has occasionally been reported. TB is often associated with two reflexes, the trigeminal cardiac reflex (TCR) and the vasovagal reflex (VVR) and is characterised by a rapid decrease in heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP). The prevalence of TCR is considered low, and its predictors have not been thoroughly investigated, although an association with the gag reflex has been suggested in recent years. METHODS: This prospective study assessed TB occurrence during local anaesthesia and its potential associated factors. A comprehensive questionnaire was used to categorise discomforts during dental treatment, and various anxiety scales were used to measure patients' anxiety levels. We investigated HR variability during local anaesthesia administration under sedation and the association between the incidence of TB and gag reflex. Subsequently, logistic regression analysis was performed to assess factors associated with TB occurrence. RESULTS: The prospective analysis included 188 patients of 234 initial patients. The analysis revealed a high TB incidence rate of 41% during local anaesthesia administration under sedation. No severe hypotensive events occurred, indicating a relatively benign nature of TB during local anaesthesia. TB occurrence was significantly higher in the group of patients with the gag reflex. Further analysis revealed that both gag reflex and trait anxiety were significantly associated with TB occurrence, whereas dental phobia did not directly correlate with TB. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the prominent occurrence of TB during local anaesthesia in dental treatment, which is primarily attributed to TCR activation. The identification of gag reflex and trait anxiety as independent factors associated with TB development may pave the way for TB prevention measures. Further research is required to clarify the mechanisms of TCR and perform safer dental procedures under sedation. Future studies should also aim to elucidate the precise mechanisms underlying TB during local anaesthesia through direct measurements of neural activity. A better understanding of TB in dentistry is crucial for improving patient safety and optimising dental practice protocols.

A survey on the safety of anesthesia management provided by dental anesthesiologists in Japan: a 5-year survey by the Japanese Dental Society of Anesthesiology.

OBJECTIVES: The Japanese Dental Society of Anesthesiology (JDSA) has conducted a survey on the safety of anesthetic practice provided by dental anesthesiologists. This report includes information on the incidence of life-threating events, which is necessary for evaluating the safety of dental anesthesia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study was designed as a retrospective observational questionnaire-based survey. All 32 JDSA accredited training facilities participated in this study. The accredited facilities were requested to provide annual data on basic demographic information concerning anesthetic management during the 5-year period from 2014 to 2018, inclusive. Details regarding life-threatening events were also requested. RESULTS: During the survey period between 2014 and 2018, a total of 219,343 cases of anesthetic management (80,138 cases of general anesthesia, 127,819 cases of sedation, and 11,386 cases of monitoring) were reported by the 32 JDSA accredited training facilities. The overall incidence of life-threatening events occurring during clinical dental anesthesia was 2.14/10,000, while the incidence of anesthesia-related events was 0.96/10,000. No deaths arising from anesthesia-related events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first survey on clinical outcomes of dental anesthesia to be conducted. The survey results provide evidence supporting the safety of anesthetic management as performed by dental anesthesiologists. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this study will provide a basis for benchmarking the safety of dental anesthesia not only in Japan, but also around the world.

Sedative and adverse effect comparison between oral midazolam and nitrous oxide inhalation in tooth extraction: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Oral midazolam and nitrous oxide inhalation were commonly used sedative and analgesic techniques during tooth extraction. It is still controversial whether oral midazolam can replace the nitrous oxide inhalation for sedative and analgesic treatment of tooth extraction. Therefore, we conducted this study in order to provide a reference for doctors to choose effective sedative and analgesic treatment in tooth extraction. METHODS: We searched the Chinese and English databases including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang and VIP information databases. RESULTS: Through this meta-analysis, we found that the success rate of sedation and analgesia treatment with oral midazolam during tooth extraction was 75.67% and the incidence of adverse reactions was 21.74%. The success rate of sedation and analgesia treatment using nitrous oxide inhalation during tooth extraction was 93.6% and the incidence of adverse reactions was 3.95%. CONCLUSION: The use of nitrous oxide inhalation for sedation and analgesia during tooth extraction is very effective, and oral midazolam can be used as an alternative to nitrous oxide inhalation.

Adverse effects of articaine versus lidocaine in pediatric dentistry: a meta-analysis.

Over the last few years, numerous reports have lauded the efficacy of articaine hydrochloride as a local anesthetic (LA) in dental procedures. Numerous studies have shown that articaine outperforms lidocaine in various aspects of dental treatment, leading to its widespread adoption in both adults and children. Despite the publications of comparative studies, there remains a dearth of systematic reviews examining the adverse effects of articaine versus lidocaine in randomized controlled trials. The aim was to assess the available research on the adverse effects of articaine and lidocaine in pediatric dentistry. A comprehensive search was conducted on Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Embase, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared articaine with lidocaine in pediatric dentistry were included. Methodological quality assessment and risk of bias were determined for each of the included studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to assess the strength of evidence for every research. A total of 333 studies were identified through electronic searches. After conducting primary and secondary assessments, eight studies were included for the final qualitative analysis. We found no difference in the probability of adverse reactions between articaine and lidocaine after treatment in pediatric patients (risk ratio (RR) = 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.54-2.15), p = 0.83). However, a high heterogeneity was reported among the outcomes in the investigated studies (I2 = 57%), and the strength of the evidence was classified as "moderate" based on the GRADE approach. Besides, we found no significant difference in the probability of postoperative pain, postoperative soft tissue injury and edema between articaine and lidocaine in pediatric patients following treatment. There was moderate quality evidence suggesting no difference in the occurrence of adverse events between articaine and lidocaine when used for pediatric dental procedures.

Effects of throat packs in upper airway surgery under intubation anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Throat packs (TP) are used in upper airway surgery to avoid accumulation and aspiration of blood, foreign bodies, and fluids. But side effects such as sore throat and TP retention have been reported and challenge the standardized use of TP. The aim of this study is to compare benefits and side effects of TP versus no TP for upper airway procedures in intubation anesthesia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred forty-eight patients with surgical interventions at the upper airway under intubation anesthesia were included. Of those, n = 74 each were treated without (A, control) and with (B) TP. Study group B was subdivided whether TP was placed by the surgeon (B1; n = 37) or by the anesthesiologist (B2; n = 37). TP-related side effects such as sore throat, foreign body sensation, hoarseness, dyspnea, difficulty of swallowing, nausea, retching, nausea, aspiration, and pneumonia as well as the influence of TP design and the applicant (surgeon or anesthetist) were analyzed. RESULTS: A significantly increased rate of difficulty of swallowing (p = 0.045), intensity of sore throat (p = 0.04), and foreign body sensation (p = 0.024) was found in group B when compared to group A. There was no correlation between hoarseness, dyspnea, nausea, retching, and TP. No case of aspiration or pneumonia was seen but one TP was accidentally forgotten in the patient. B2 showed an increased frequency of difficulty swallowing, followed by A and B1. B1 led to the highest incidence of nausea followed by the A and B2. CONCLUSION: The use of TP led to a high rate of side effects without showing the propagated advantages. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of TP must be considered critically and cannot generally be recommended without specific reasons, such as high aspiration risk.

Developing a Classification System for Prioritizing Pediatric Dental Patients Needing Treatment under General Anesthesia.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore a classification system for children requiring full-mouth dental rehabilitation (FMDR) in the operating room (OR) and its association with adverse events. METHODS: Patients treated at a pediatric dental residency clinic and determined to need FMDR in the OR were classified on initial examination, based on the extent of caries, pain and the presence of a dental abscess. On the treatment date, parents were given a questionnaire concerning adverse events that occurred while waiting for treatment. Χ2 tests of independence were used to determine associations between classification (OR code) and the occurrence of adverse events. The Pearson's r test was used to determine relations among adverse events and wait time. RESULTS: The study included 82 patients (age range 2-10 years, mean 4.73 years, median 4 years). The average wait time was 55.6 days. The most common OR classification was caries in the outer third of dentin without pain or abscess, and the most common adverse event was difficulty eating or drinking. The OR code category most closely associated with negative outcomes was the presence of a dental abscess, followed by caries depth, then pain. Wait time was not associated with the occurrence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide evidence to support the need for a classification system for children requiring FMDR in the OR. Dental abscess, caries depth and pain were associated with adverse events.

Pain perception following computer-controlled versus conventional dental anesthesia: randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The administration of local anesthesia (LA) in dental practice requires an injection which is the leading cause of patients' fear and anxiety. Computer-controlled local anesthetic injector, designed to reduce the pain of performing local anesthesia by controlling the speed of injection. This single-blind randomised control trial aimed to compare the pain perception after computer-controlled local anesthesia (CCLA) and conventional LA. METHODS: Dental students were both test and operator group versus an experienced dentist as additional operator of the LA. Data were collected regarding gender, age, medical condition, smoking habits. Additionally, operator feedback about the handling, pain at insertion and during infiltration, excitement (Dental Anxiety Scale), and complications were assessed. RESULTS: Out of the 60 included participants, the majority were females (n = 41; 68.3%), medically healthy (n = 54; 90%), and did not receive medications (n = 54; 90%). While the participating students administered 62 (51.7%) injections, the experienced dentist administered 58 (48.3%) injections. The difference in pain perception on puncture between CCLA and conventional injections was not statistically significant (Sig. = 0.285); however, pain perception during injection was significantly different (Sig. = 0.029) between CCLA (1.65 ± 1.93) and conventional injections (2.49 ± 2.31). CONCLUSION: The professional experience influenced the pain perception while applying the LA. CCLA did not reduce pain on puncture significantly; however, pain perception during the injection was significantly reduced in the case of using CCLA devices compared to the conventional syringe.

[Aspiration test as dental anesthesia safety criterion]. / Aspiratsionnyi test kak kriterii bezopasnosti obezbolivaniya v stomatologii.

Intravascular anesthetic injection can lead to acute toxic reaction even the minimal dose of the drug was administered. The aspiration test is a generally accepted standard for local anesthesia in medicine, specially designed to reduce the risk of emergency conditions. Medical instruments should be adapted for aspiration test, the local anesthetic carpule should have a retention notch, and the dental syringe plunger need to have retention elements. The aspiration test protocol may vary. For legal protection of the doctor the aspiration test result should be described in the patient's medical record.

Does the Use of Articaine Increase the Risk of Hypesthesia in Lower Third Molar Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the risk of hypesthesia with the use of articaine in comparison with other local anesthetics in lower third molar surgery, through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases were searched. Gray literature and manual searches were also performed. RESULTS: Altogether 342 articles were found; only 13 met the eligibility criteria. A total of 886 third molars were removed; 436 using articaine, 430 using other local anesthetics, and 20 using an anesthetic mixture. Altogether 5 cases of hypesthesia were found in the articaine group, with 4 temporary and 1 with no mention of nerve involved; there was no case of permanent confirmed hypesthesia. A total of 9 articles demonstrated a low risk of bias, and 4 articles showed some concern. The meta-analysis demonstrated a 3.96 relative risk for hypesthesia with the use of articaine compared with other local anesthetics, but this result was not statistically significant. The heterogeneity of the studies was low from a clinical, methodological, and statistical point of view. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that the use of articaine does not increase the risk of hypesthesia compared with other local anesthetics in lower third molar extraction, and when present, this complication is temporary.

Pain Experienced during Various Dental Procedures: Clinical Trial Comparing the Use of Traditional Syringes with the Controlled-Flow Delivery Dentapen® Technique.

Background and Objectives: Currently, one of the most discouraging aspects for many patients undergoing dental procedures is the administration of anaesthesia. Consequently, there is a constant search for new techniques to avoid the invasive and painful nature of the injection. A new motorised syringe system (Dentapen®) has recently been developed, standing out for its convenience and ease of use. Material and Methods: Randomised, controlled, single-blind, and single-centre study including 178 voluntary adult participants aged between 18 and 90 years. Individuals were randomly assigned using a randomised table. Patients were asked to rate the level of pain experienced during the injections, using a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS). The following data were recorded: pain index, heart rate, blood pressure, and saturation, both before and after anaesthesia. Results: Of the total 178 participants, 87 participants (48.9%) were men and 91 (51.1%) were women. The first variable to be assessed was the pain experienced by patients when anaesthetised with a syringe, obtaining a mean value of 2.63 ± 1.86 on the VAS with the conventional syringe and 1.06 ± 1.28 with the Dentapen® syringe, showing statistically significant differences (p-value < 0.01). When stratifying, based on the procedure that was undertaken, differences were also significant for all treatments (p-value < 0.01) except for endodontics, where differences were likely to be significant (p-value = 0.02). Conclusions: In conclusion, from a clinical standpoint, the Dentapen® syringe is a valid alternative to traditional infiltration syringes, causing minimum pain with the injection.

Evaluation of effect of warm local anesthetics on pain perception during dental injections in children: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: The present study evaluates the efficacy of warm local anesthetic (37 °C) administration and injections of local anesthetics at room temperature (21 °C) in reducing pain during injections in children undergoing dental procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Enrolled for this split-mouth randomized clinical study were 100 children aged 5-8 years. Within the random crossover design selected for the study, each patient was randomly assigned to receive either a body or room temperature local anesthesia in the first session and the other local anesthesia on the second session. During the injection, the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale was used as a subjective measure of discomfort, and heart rate as an objective measure. The Face, Legs, Arms, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) scale was used to record the child's pain, based on the perception of the dental assistant. The data were analyzed using a Wilcoxon sign rank test and a paired t test. RESULTS: Based on the score of the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale, the FLACC scale, and heart rate, the sensation of pain during dental injection in both girls and boys is statistically significantly lower at body temperature than at room temperature (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: It was determined that the application of local anesthetic at body temperature reduces dental injection pain significantly when compared with local anesthetics administered at room temperature. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The successful management of dental injection pain is an important issue during dental procedures in children. Accordingly, warming the local anesthesia prior to use in children can be recommended to clinicians.

Inhalation Sedation During the COVID-19 Outbreak: An Expert Opinion.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the pathogen that causes coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), is thought to be transmitted via droplets and aerosols, and was detected in saliva of infected individuals. These droplets from the upper airway may infect the inhalation sedation mask and tubing. The authors determined the adequate measures needed to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 by nitrous-oxide (N2O) system during inhalation sedation in dentistry and provided evidence on mask and tubing sterilization. Additional measures to protect patients and healthcare workers from COVID-19 that may be transmitted by the inhalation sedation system are discussed. The authors recommend minimal use of a N2O system during inhalation sedation in dentistry. In case of need, the practitioners should have more than one scavenger kit and nasal masks for each N2O/O2 mixer. Biologic barriers should be mounted between the scavenger's tubing and the central evacuation system. Strict cleansing and sterilization should be performed for all parts of the N2O system. The use a disposable scavenger system and nasal mask should be considered as a viable option.

Ice versus lidocaine 5% gel for topical anaesthesia of oral mucosa - a randomized cross-over study.

BACKGROUND: Topical anaesthesia is important to optimize pain control during dental injection. Our aim was to describe a new simple method for topical anaesthesia of oral mucosa and to compare the effectiveness of ice and lidocaine 5% gel for topical anaesthesia of oral mucosa. METHODS: A total of 40 patients aged 10.7-19.5 years were included. The side and method of application were both randomized. Heart rate was recorded, and discomfort and pain were evaluated with a visual analogue scale (VAS). A paired t-test was used to compare mean values, a chi2 test was used to compare proportions, and a Pearson correlation test was used to examine correlations between variables. RESULTS: When ice was used, buccal injection VAS pain was rated lower (p = 0.044), and VAS discomfort was rated higher (p = 0.001), in comparison to when lidocaine 5% gel was used. There was no significant difference in relative heart rate change between ice and lidocaine 5% gel at either needle stick or injection. Lidocaine 5% gel produced a relative heart rate reduction after palatal injection (0.99 ± 0.06) while buccal injection produced an increased relative heart rate (1.02 ± 0.08) (p = 0.010). Unpleasant taste was more frequently reported when lidocaine 5% gel was used (p = 0.025). An application time of 1 min was sufficient for both ice and lidocaine 5% gel to achieve pain reduction from needle stick in buccal mucosa. CONCLUSION: The cheap and readily available described method using ice for topical anaesthesia of oral mucosa before dental injection is an effective alternative to lidocaine 5% gel. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database EudraCT201300530531. Date of registration: February 10th, 2014.

A case of transient diplopia and ophthalmoplegia following dental anesthesia.

Dental anesthesia is one of the most frequently performed medical procedures. Although the frequency of ocular complications is extremely low, these reactions can be highly alarming and may bring up medicolegal issues when they do occur. Dentists and oral surgeons should be well-informed of these adverse reactions and should be aware that both ophthalmologists and emergency physicians might be required to care for these patients.

Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Pain during dental treatment, which is a common fear of patients, can be controlled successfully by local anaesthetic. Several different local anaesthetic formulations and techniques are available to dentists. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objectives were to compare the success of anaesthesia, the speed of onset and duration of anaesthesia, and systemic and local adverse effects amongst different local anaesthetic formulations for dental anaesthesia. We define success of anaesthesia as absence of pain during a dental procedure, or a negative response to electric pulp testing or other simulated scenario tests. We define dental anaesthesia as anaesthesia given at the time of any dental intervention.Our secondary objective was to report on patients' experience of the procedures carried out. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (OVID SP), Embase, CINAHL PLUS, WEB OF SCIENCE, and other resources up to 31 January 2018. Other resources included trial registries, handsearched journals, conference proceedings, bibliographies/reference lists, and unpublished research. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing different formulations of local anaesthetic used for clinical procedures or simulated scenarios. Studies could apply a parallel or cross-over design. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological approaches for data collection and analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 123 studies (19,223 participants) in the review. We pooled data from 68 studies (6615 participants) for meta-analysis, yielding 23 comparisons of local anaesthetic and 57 outcomes with 14 different formulations. Only 10 outcomes from eight comparisons involved clinical testing.We assessed the included studies as having low risk of bias in most domains. Seventy-three studies had at least one domain with unclear risk of bias. Fifteen studies had at least one domain with high risk of bias due to inadequate sequence generation, allocation concealment, masking of local anaesthetic cartridges for administrators or outcome assessors, or participant dropout or exclusion.We reported results for the eight most important comparisons.Success of anaesthesiaWhen the success of anaesthesia in posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring root canal treatment is tested, 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine, may be superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (31% with 2% lidocaine vs 49% with 4% articaine; risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 2.32; 4 parallel studies; 203 participants; low-quality evidence).When the success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures and surgical procedures/periodontal treatment, respectively, was tested, 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin (66% with 3% prilocaine vs 76% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; 2 parallel studies; 907 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and 4% prilocaine plain (71% with 4% prilocaine vs 83% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; 2 parallel studies; 228 participants; low-quality evidence) were inferior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine.Comparative effects of 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine on success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures are uncertain (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.02; 3 parallel studies; 930 participants; very low-quality evidence).Comparative effects of 0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.83; 2 cross-over studies; 37 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.07 to 5.12; 2 cross-over studies; 31 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction are uncertain.Comparative effects of 2% mepivacaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 3.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 23.82; 1 parallel and 1 cross-over study; 110 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.25 to 5.45; 2 parallel studies; 68 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction and teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring endodontic access and instrumentation, respectively, are uncertain.For remaining outcomes, assessing success of dental local anaesthesia via meta-analyses was not possible.Onset and duration of anaesthesiaFor comparisons assessing onset and duration, no clinical studies met our outcome definitions.Adverse effects (continuous pain measured on 170-mm Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (VAS))Differences in post-injection pain between 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine are small, as measured on a VAS (mean difference (MD) 4.74 mm, 95% CI -1.98 to 11.46 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 314 interventions; moderate-quality evidence). Lidocaine probably resulted in slightly less post-injection pain than articaine (MD 6.41 mm, 95% CI 1.01 to 11.80 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 309 interventions; moderate-quality evidence) on the same VAS.For remaining comparisons assessing local and systemic adverse effects, meta-analyses were not possible. Other adverse effects were rare and minor.Patients' experiencePatients' experience of procedures was not assessed owing to lack of data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For success (absence of pain), low-quality evidence suggests that 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine for root treating of posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis, and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 4% prilocaine plain when surgical procedures/periodontal treatment was provided. Moderate-quality evidence shows that 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin when surgical procedures were performed.Adverse events were rare. Moderate-quality evidence shows no difference in pain on injection when 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine were compared, although lidocaine resulted in slightly less pain following injection.Many outcomes tested our primary objectives in simulated scenarios, although clinical alternatives may not be possible.Further studies are needed to increase the strength of the evidence. These studies should be clearly reported, have low risk of bias with adequate sample size, and provide data in a format that will allow meta-analysis. Once assessed, results of the 34 'Studies awaiting classification (full text unavailable)' may alter the conclusions of the review.

Providing Anesthesia in the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Office: A Look Back, Where We Are Now and a Look Ahead.

Throughout its development the practice of oral and maxillofacial surgery has been richly associated with the provision of anesthetic services. Dentists and particularly oral and maxillofacial surgeons have advanced the science associated with anesthesia especially in the outpatient setting. This article will look back on the development of anesthesia as it relates to oral and maxillofacial surgery, discuss the current mode of anesthesia in the oral surgeon's practice and look ahead to what innovations are advancing this field.

Trigemino-gustatory interactions: a randomized controlled clinical trial assessing the effects of selective anesthesia of dental afferents on taste thresholds.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed at analyzing the effect of the temporary removal of trigeminal dental afferents on electrogustometric thresholds (EGMt). MATERIAL AND METHODS: EGMt were measured in 300 healthy subjects randomized in three groups, in nine loci on the right and left side (RS, LS) of the tongue surface before and after anesthesia. Group IAN (n = 56 RS, n = 44 LS) received intraosseous local anesthesia of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN). Group MdN received mandibular nerve (MdN) block targeting IAN before its entrance into the mandibular foramen (n = 60, RS, and n = 40, LS); group MxN receiving maxillary nerve (MxN) anesthesia (n = 56 RS and n = 44 LS) was the control group. Differences between mean EGMt were analyzed with the Wilcoxon test; correlation between type of anesthesia and EGMt was performed with Spearman's rho, all with a level of significance set at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Significant EGMt (µA) differences before and after anesthesia were found in all loci with MdN and IAN on the ipsilateral side (p < 0.05), but not with MxN. Anesthesia of the MdN was positively correlated with the increase in EGMt (p < 0.001). Selective anesthesia of IAN was positively correlated only with the increase in EGMt measured at posterior and dorsal loci of the tongue surface (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The increase in EGMt following IAN anesthesia suggests a participation of dental afferents in taste perception. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Extraction of teeth may impair food intake not only due to impaired masticatory ability but also to alteration of neurological trigemino-gustatory interactions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PACTR201602001452260.

Intense, Instantaneous, and Shooting Pain During Local Anesthesia for Implant Surgery.

Administration of local anesthetics is daily routine for most dental practitioners. Normally, the effect is achieved, and no adverse effects are seen. In this article, the authors describe the complications of immediate, intense and shooting pain, numbness, and marked pallor of the cheek, which occurred during infiltration of a local anesthetic in buccal vestibule infiltration. The patients moved suddenly because of pain and marked pallor of the cheek near the root of the nose and lower eyelid pallor was observed. The pain was very short and the injection was performed again after a few minutes. Two patients also reported an alteration of vision or paralysis of the extra-ocular muscles and drooping eyelid due to paralysis of the levator palpebrae superioris muscle and signs of numbness in the infraorbital area on the same side as the anesthesia. While 3 patients were also apprehensive and started to scare with heart palpitations, as they did not understand what was happening. Probably the anesthetic solutions were injected into an intravascular artery and passed from the extraosseous branch of posterior superior alveolar artery through to the infraorbital artery, which could produce the clinical signs observed in the present study. At the same time, the inoculation of anesthetic in the artery could be grounds for legal disputes for the dentist. In fact, in the absence of vascular disease, anomalies documented by the dentist, they would, however, respond to professional liability and be liable for damages caused to the patient. In conclusion, despite the fact that this condition requires no treatment, it could lead to the recognition of clinical signs in patient with injection of local anesthesia into the artery. At the same time, the inoculation of anesthetic in the artery could be grounds for legal disputes for the dentist.

The effect of mouth prop on endotracheal tube intracuff pressure in children during dental rehabilitation under general anaesthesia.

Although the endotracheal tube (ETT) cuff may be associated with tracheal morbidity, cuffed tubes may reduce the aspiration risk in oral procedures. Dentists must use a mouth prop to facilitate oral visualization and to protect the oral soft tissues during dental rehabilitation under general anaesthesia (DRGA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of mouth prop on endotracheal tube intracuff pressure in children during DRGA. Two-hundred and three ASA I-II patients, <18 years of age (mean: 5.3 ± 2.4 years) were included in the prospective observational study whose comprehensive dental treatment was performed under general anaesthesia. Following the induction of general anaesthesia, placement of a cuffed endotracheal tube which was an appropriate size for children was fixed. The intracuff pressure was measured intermittently after the intubation (baseline) (T0), immediately after the mouth prop (T1), 30 min after the mouth prop (T2), after taking out the mouth prop (T3) and just before extubation (T4). The mean intracuff pressure was 28.3 ± 2.01 cm H2O at T0. The mean intracuff pressure significantly increased at T1 (30.8 ± 2.7) and T2 (29.6 ± 3.7) compared to T0 (P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the duration of the procedure and intracuff pressure or postoperative complications (P > 0.05). Cough, sore throat and nausea were observed in 4, 1 and 5 patients, respectively. Because a mouth prop may increase the intracuff pressure of ETT, strict measurement and readjustment of cuff pressures should be employed when used in children during DRGA.