Evaluation of acceptance and preference of topical lidocaine application versus articaine injection anesthesia after nonsurgical periodontal treatment: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: To compare acceptance and preference of topical lidocaine gel anesthesia with articaine injection anesthesia in patients with moderate periodontitis undergoing scaling and root debridement. METHODS: Ninety-one patients completed this randomized multicenter split-mouth controlled study and underwent two separate periodontal treatment sessions on different days, one with a topical intrapocket lidocaine gel application and the other with an articaine injection anesthesia in a different order depending on randomization. Parameters measured were the patients' preference for topical lidocaine gel anesthesia or injection anesthesia with articaine (primary efficacy criterion), their maximum and average pain, and their intensity of numbness as well as experience of side effects; the probing depth; and the dentists' preference and their evaluations of handling/application, onset and duration of anesthetic effect, and patient compliance. RESULTS: After having experienced both alternatives, 58.3% of the patients preferred the topical lidocaine gel instillation into the periodontal pockets. The safety profile of the lidocaine gel differed positively from the safety profile of articaine injection in type and frequency of adverse drug reactions. The dentists' acceptance and preference regarding either anesthetic method studied were balanced. CONCLUSIONS: Instillation of lidocaine gel into the periodontal pocket is a preferred alternative to injection anesthesia for most of the patients and an equivalent alternative for dentists in nonsurgical periodontal therapy.

Evaluation of an ex vivo porcine model to investigate the effect of low abrasive airpolishing.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of an ex vivo porcine model to investigate the influence of periodontal instrumentation on soft tissue. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In each of 120 pig mandibles, one molar tooth was chosen at random and instrumented. For subgingival debridement, two different low abrasive airpolishing powders (glycine d90 = 25 µm, erythritol d90 = 14 µm, n = 30 teeth each), curets, and a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler were used (n = 30 teeth each). Thirty teeth in 30 other mandibles served as the untreated control. Gingival biopsies were histologically assessed for destruction using a four-graded scale. RESULTS: The porcine model was deemed suitable for the planned investigation. Hand instrumentation and ultrasonic scaling caused higher tissue damage than both low abrasive airpolishing modes (Fisher's exact test, p = 0.0025). Glycine powder led to less, yet non-statistical noticeable gingival changes compared to erythritol-based powder (Fisher's exact test, p = 0.39). CONCLUSION: An animal model using pig jaws may be used as a preliminary model to analyze histological effects of periodontal instrumentation in advance of studies performed in human tissues. Among the techniques assessed, low abrasive airpolishing (LAA) caused the smallest tissue damage. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: To avoid gingival damage using LAA, histological observations of gingival tissue are needed. Since numerous powders for LAA have been developed and it may be expected that additional products will follow, it appears to be useful to establish ex vivo animal models to prove the powders safety.