Is it possible to extract lower third molars with infiltration anaesthesia techniques using articaine? A double-blind randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) with additional buccal infiltration (standard technique) and of buccal and lingual anaesthetic infiltration (experimental technique) for lower third molar (L3M) extractions. STUDY DESIGN: A randomised, double-blind clinical trial involving 129 L3M extractions was conducted. In the IANB group, an IANB was performed using the conventional approach, followed by a buccal injection in the extraction area. In the infiltration group (INF), an infiltration was performed in the buccal and lingual areas of the lower second molar. A 4% articaine solution was employed in all cases. The main outcome variable was anaesthetic efficacy. Other variables like intraoperative and postoperative pain, onset time and adverse events were also recorded. Descriptive and bivariate analyses of the data were made. RESULTS: 120 patients were randomised. The IANB group showed significantly higher anaesthetic efficacy than the INF group (64.4 vs. 45.8%) (odds ratio = 0.47; 95% confidence interval = 0.22-0.97; p = 0.042). No complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS: IANB with additional buccal infiltration is more suitable than the experimental technique for achieving adequate analgesia in L3M extractions. Moreover, the standard method is safe and provides a shorter onset time and lower initial postoperative pain levels.

Haemostatic agents in apical surgery. A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Blood presence in apical surgery can prevent the correct vision of the surgical field, change the physical properties of filling materials and reduce their sealing ability. OBJECTIVES: To describe which are the most effective and safest haemostatic agents to control bleeding in patients undergoing apical surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We carried out a systematic review, using Medline and Cochrane Library databases, of human clinical studies published in the last 10 years. RESULTS: The agents that proved more effective in bleeding control were calcium sulphate (100%) and collagen plus epinephrine (92.9%) followed by ferric sulphate (60%), gauze packing (30%) and collagen (16.7%). When using aluminium chloride (Expasyl(R)), over 90% of the apical lesions improved, but this agent seemed to increase swelling. Epinephrine with collagen did not significantly raise either blood pressure or heart rate. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the use of several haemostatic materials in apical surgery, there is little evidence on their effectiveness and safety. The most effective haemostatic agents were calcium sulphate and epinephrine plus collagen. Epinephrine plus collagen did not seem to significantly raise blood pressure or heart rate during surgery. Aluminium chloride did not increase postoperative pain but could slightly increase postoperative swelling. Randomized clinical trials are needed to assess the haemostatic effectiveness and adverse effects of haemostatic materials in apical surgery

Delayed-onset infections after impacted lower third molar extraction: involved bacteria and sensitivity profiles to commonly used antibiotics.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to identify the bacteria involved in delayed-onset infections after lower third molar removal and to determine the most suitable antibiotic for such complication. STUDY DESIGN: Bacterial samples were collected from 13 patients who developed delayed-onset infections after lower third molar extraction. After the identification of the bacterial isolates, the in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility of the isolated strains was determined. RESULTS: A total of 11 patients (12 samples) were finally included in the study. Up to 7 bacteria genera were identified. Fusobacterium sp. was present in 11 patients, Prevotella sp. in 8 cases, and Peptostreptococcus sp. in 7. Some strains of these bacteria were not susceptible to amoxicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanate, and metronidazol, whereas no resistances were found to clindamycin. CONCLUSIONS: Fusobacterium sp., Prevotella sp., and Peptostreptococcus sp. are frequently present in delayed-onset infections after lower third molar removal. Based on the results of the microbial susceptibility tests, clindamycin seems to be the most adequate antibiotic for the treatment of this complication.

A prospective, randomized, triple-blind comparison of articaine and bupivacaine for maxillary infiltrations

Objectives: To compare the clinical anesthetic efficacy of 0.5% bupivacaine and 4% articaine (both with 1:200.000adrenaline) for anterior maxillary infiltration in healthy volunteers. Material and methods: A triple-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial was carried out in 20 volunteers. A supraperiosteal buccal injection of 0.9 ml of either solution at the apex of the lateral incisor was done in 2 appointments separated 2 weeks apart. The following outcome variables were measured: latency time, anesthetic efficacy(dental pulp, keratinized gingiva, alveolar mucosa and upper lip mucosa and tissue) and the duration of anesthetic effect. Hemodynamic parameters were monitored during the procedure. Results: Latency time recorded was similar for both anesthetic solutions (p>0.05). No statistically significant differences were found in terms of anesthetic efficacy for dental pulp, keratinized gingiva or alveolar mucosa. Articaine had a significant higher proportion of successful anesthesia at 10 minutes after infiltration in lip mucosa and lip skin (p=0.039). The duration of anesthesia was 336 minutes for bupivacaine and 167 minutes for articaine. (p<0.001). No significant hemodynamic alterations were noted during the procedure. Conclusions: Articaine and bupivacaine exhibited similar anesthetic efficacy for maxillary infiltrations. The duration of anesthesia was longer with the bupivacaine solution, but lip anesthesia was better with articaine (AU)

Analgesic efficacy of diclofenac sodium versus ibuprofen following surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars.

OBJECTIVE: An evaluation is made of the analgesic efficacy of diclofenac sodium versus ibuprofen after impacted lower third molar surgery. STUDY DESIGN: The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups (ibuprofen or diclofenac). The difficulty of third molar surgery, performed under local anesthesia, was assessed by the degree of inclusion involved. The recorded study variables were pain intensity and the need for rescue medication during one week. The recordings were made once a day at the same time, using a patient-completed questionnaire. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were finally included in the study (87.1%). The results were similar in the first 48 postoperative hours in both groups, though on the third day the diclofenac group tended to show higher pain scores--the differences being nonsignificant, however (p<0.05). This tendency was also reflected by an increased need for rescue medication and the consumption of a larger number of tablets in the diclofenac group. CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically significant differences in analgesic efficacy between diclofenac sodium and ibuprofen, though the former was associated with an increased need for supplementary medication in the first two postoperative days (p<0.05).

Eficacia analgésica del diclofenaco sódico vs. ibuprofeno después de la extracción quirúrgica de un tercer molar inferior incluido / Analgesic efficacy of diclofenac sodium versus ibuprofen following surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars

-Objetivo: En este estudio evaluamos la eficacia analgésica del diclofenaco sódico en comparación con el ibuprofeno, después de la extracción quirúrgica de un tercer molar inferior incluido. -Diseño de estudio: Los pacientes que participaron en el estudio fueron distribuidos de forma aleatoria en dos grupos. Uno fue el grupo ibuprofeno y el otro el grupo diclofenaco. La intervención practicada fue la extracción quirúrgica de un tercer molar inferior cuya dificultad fue determinada en función del grado de inclusión en todos los pacientes. Las variables registradas fueron la intensidad del dolor y la necesidad de medicación de rescate durante un periodo de una semana. Los registros se realizaron una vez al día a la misma hora y registrados en un cuaderno por parte del paciente. -Resultados: Un total de 81 pacientes (87.1%) fueron incluidos en el estudio. Los valores fueron similares en las primeras 48 horas postoperatorias, pero a partir del tercer día existió una tendencia del grupo diclofenaco a mostrar valores de dolor superiores, aunque sin llegar a existir diferencias estadísticamente significativas (p>0.05). Esta tendencia a presentar mayor dolor durante el periodo postoperatorio en el grupo diclofenaco también se vio reflejada en el requerimiento del analgésico de rescate y en el número de comprimidos empleados. -Conclusiones: No se evidenciaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas en cuanto a la eficacia analgésica del diclofenaco sódico respecto al ibuprofeno, aunque sí pudo observarse una mayor tendencia hacia la necesidad de más medicación suplementaria durante los 2 primeros días del postoperatorio en el grupo diclofenaco pero sin adquirir significación estadística (p>0.05) (AU)

-Objective: An evaluation is made of the analgesic efficacy of diclofenac sodium versus ibuprofen after impacted lower third molar surgery. -Study design: The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups (ibuprofen or diclofenac). The difficulty of third molar surgery, performed under local anesthesia, was assessed by the degree of inclusion involved. The recorded study variables were pain intensity and the need for rescue medication during one week. The recordings were made once a day at the same time, using a patient-completed questionnaire. -Results: Eighty-one patients were finally included in the study (87.1%). The results were similar in the first 48 postoperative hours in both groups, though on the third day the diclofenac group tended to show higher pain scores - the differences being nonsignificant, however (p>0.05). This tendency was also reflected by an increased need for rescue medication and the consumption of a larger number of tablets in the diclofenac group. -Conclusions: There were no statistically significant differences in analgesic efficacy between diclofenac sodium and ibuprofen, though the former was associated with an increased need for supplementary medication in the first two postoperative days (p>0.05) (AU)