Efficacy of infiltrative local anesthesia and inferior alveolar nerve block in periapical surgery of lower premolars and molars: A preliminary report.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were: 1) compare the amount of anesthesia used with the anesthetic technique; 2) relate the quantity of anesthesia needed with the level of anxiety of the patient; 3) study the relationship between the anesthetic technique and the level of hemostasis; 4) correlate the amount of anesthesia with patient and tooth dependent variables. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was designed with two parallel groups according to the anesthetic technique: infiltrative local anesthesia (infiltrative group) and inferior alveolar nerve block (block group). The following variables were collected: sex, age, smoking habits, plaque index, symptoms, signs, position of the tooth and amount of anesthesia. Before surgery, all patients were asked to assess their anxiety on a six-item questionnaire, the Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale (APAIS). The analysis of the hemorrhage control of aluminum chloride was judged by the surgeon and two examiners independently and recorded it as: 0 (no hemorrhage control), 1 (slight but apparent intermittent bleeding persisted after application of the material), or 2 (complete hemorrhage control). RESULTS: Twenty patients were included in this preliminary report. The amount of anesthesia used was lower in block group and in less anxious patients, although these results did not reach statistical significance. A relationship was found between the quantity of anesthesia used and a good hemostasis of the bony crypt before the application of the hemostatic agent (p<.05); and between elderly patients and a lower amount of anesthetic reinforcement (p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Based on these preliminary results, we can conclude that no statistical significance difference was found between the amount of anesthesia used and the anesthetic technique or the anxiety. A relationship was found between hemostasis of the bony crypt and the quantity of anesthesia used; and between younger patients and a greater amount of anesthetic reinforcement. Key words:Anesthesia, anxiety, endodontic surgery, hemostasis, hemostatic agents,periradicular surgery.

Implant survival after surgical treatment of early apical peri-implantitis: An ambispective cohort study covering a 20-year period.

PURPOSE: To describe implant survival at least 1 year after the surgical treatment of early apical peri-implantitis (EAP) and explore potential risk factors of failure of such treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An ambispective cohort study was conducted, involving all patients in whom EAP was detected and surgically treated between 1996 and 2016. Reporting followed the STROBE guidelines. The time from implant placement (IP) to EAP surgery (EAPS), the diagnostic stage and intraoperative variables (location, apical lesion in the tooth being replaced, mesial and distal tooth-implant distance measured at the apex, periapical surgery of the adjacent tooth, guided bone regeneration, implant resection, explantation) were recorded to determine their impact upon treatment outcome. RESULTS: The initial sample consisted of 58 implants in 46 patients. The mean time from IP to EAPS was 21.7 ± 10.1 days. At the time of surgery, eight implants presented mobility and were explanted. The final sample consisted of 50 implants in 39 patients evaluated for implant survival after surgical treatment. A cumulative survival rate of 78.3% was recorded. The mean survival time of the EAP treated implants was 85.4 months (standard deviation [SD] 5.94). The diagnostic stage (P < 0.001) and the existence of a previous periapical lesion in the tooth being replaced (P = 0.022) had a significant influence upon implant survival. CONCLUSIONS: The cumulative survival rate was 78.3%, with a mean survival time of 85.4 months. The diagnostic stage of EAP and the presence of a lesion in the tooth being replaced significantly influenced the survival of implants with EAP subjected to surgical treatment.

Factors associated with early apical peri-implantitis: A retrospective study covering a 20-year period.

PURPOSE: To explore risk indicators potentially associated with early apical peri-implantitis (EAP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective survey was performed in 2017 with recorded information from patients receiving dental implants between 1996 and 2016. Reporting follows the STROBE (strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology) guidelines. Data were collected from the medical histories and radiographs: diagnosis of EAP (health/disease), gender, age, type of surgery (immediate/delayed placement), implants placed (position, width, length, location, mesial and distal tooth-implant distance measured at the apex, state of the adjacent tooth and tooth being replaced, and surgical complications. Once the EAP had developed, data were collected regarding days of evolution, symptoms, signs and radiological findings. RESULTS: A total of 2548 patients (57.1% females and 42.9% males) with 8110 implants were enrolled in the study. 46 patients with 58 implants were diagnosed with EAP - 23 in the maxilla (39.6%) and 35 in the mandible (60.4%) - between 6 and 50 days after implant placement, with a mean period of 21.7 days (SD 10.1). The frequency of EAP was 1.81% in patients and 0.71% in implants. Immediate placement multiplied the odds of developing EAP 21-fold (95% CI 6.74 to 65.7; P < 0.001) versus delayed placement. The existence of an apical lesion in the tooth being replaced multiplied the odds of developing EAP 26.3-fold (95% CI 4.24 to 162.8; P < 0.001). Replacing a tooth endodontically treated increased the odds 3.48 times (95% CI 0.99 to 12.3; P = 0.052). The presence of an adjacent endodontically treated tooth increased the odds 0.97-fold (95% CI 0.26 to 3.60; P = 0.963). An apical mesial distance of ≤ 1.5 mm increased the odds up to 5.12-fold (95% CI 2.12 to 12.4; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of endodontic periapical lesions or endodontic treatment in the tooth being replaced, immediate implant placement or mesial tooth-implant distance measured at the apex were significantly associated with increased odds of EAP.

Aluminum Chloride versus Electrocauterization in Periapical Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of 2 hemostatic agents in periapical surgery and its relationship with patient- and tooth-dependent variables. METHODS: A prospective study was designed with 2 randomized parallel groups established according to the hemostatic agent used: aluminum chloride or electrocauterization. The surgeon and 2 independent blinded observers examined the initial and final bleeding and recorded it as 0 (no hemorrhage control), 1 (slight but apparent intermittent bleeding), or 2 (complete hemorrhage control). The following patient- and tooth-dependent variables were collected: sex, age, smoking habit, plaque index, and position. RESULTS: Sixty patients with a periapical lesion in the esthetic zone were enrolled in this study and divided into 2 groups of 30 patients. In the aluminum chloride group, complete hemorrhage control was achieved in 24 patients, and in the electrocauterization group, it was achieved in 18 patients (P < .05). A relationship between sex and the effectiveness of hemostasis was found; a female patient increases the possibility of achieving complete hemorrhage control. CONCLUSIONS: Hemorrhage control was better in the aluminum chloride group than in the electrocauterization group as well as in female patients compared with male patients.

Influence of Hemostatic Agents in the Prognosis of Periapical Surgery: A Randomized Study of Epinephrine versus Aluminum Chloride.

INTRODUCTION: Several variables have been associated with a better prognosis of periapical surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of 2 hemostatic agents on the prognosis of periapical surgery at 12 months. METHODS: A prospective study was designed with 2 randomized parallel groups established depending on the hemostatic agent used: epinephrine or aluminum chloride. The analysis of the hemorrhage control was recorded as 0 (no hemorrhage control), 1 (slight but apparent intermittent bleeding persisted after application of the material), or 2 (complete hemorrhage control). At 12 months, periapical lesion healing was determined clinically and radiologically as success, improvement, or failure. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients (67 women and 28 men) with periapical lesions involving a single tooth were enrolled in this study; in 45 teeth, epinephrine was used and in 50 teeth aluminum chloride. In the epinephrine group, 28 teeth were classified as successes, 10 as improvements, and 7 as failures. In the aluminum chloride group, 34 teeth were classified as successes, 11 as improvements, and 5 as failures. No statistically significant difference was found. CONCLUSIONS: The present study found no association between the use of epinephrine or aluminum chloride as hemostatic agents on the prognosis of periapical surgery. The efficacy of hemostatic agents at the time of surgery showed no relationship with the healing outcome.

Hemostatic Agents in Periapical Surgery: A Randomized Study of Gauze Impregnated in Epinephrine versus Aluminum Chloride.

INTRODUCTION: Adequate bleeding control is essential for the success of periapical surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of 2 hemostatic agents on the outcome of periapical surgery and their relationship with patient and teeth parameters. METHODS: A prospective study was designed with 2 randomized parallel groups, depending on the hemostatic agent used: gauze impregnated in epinephrine (epinephrine group) and aluminum chloride (aluminum chloride group). The analysis of the hemorrhage control was judged before and after the application of the hemostatic agents by the surgeon, and 2 examiners independently recorded it as adequate (complete hemorrhage control) or inadequate (incomplete hemorrhage control). RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients with a periradicular lesion were enrolled in this study and divided into 2 groups: gauze impregnated in epinephrine in 48 patients (epinephrine group) or aluminum chloride in 51 (aluminum chloride group). In epinephrine group adequate hemostasis was achieved in 25 cases, and in aluminum chloride group it was achieved in 37 cases (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The outcome was better in the aluminum chloride group than in the gauze impregnated in epinephrine group.