Efficacy of photodynamic therapy and periodontal treatment in patients with gingivitis and fixed orthodontic appliances: Protocol of randomized, controlled, double-blind study.

It is known that the presence of orthodontic brackets predisposes for a change in the biofilm, facilitating the development of gingivits. The sites are difficult to access with a toothbrush and periodontal curette, worsening inflammation, in addition, a gingival hyperplasia is associated with poor hygiene. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of photodinamyc therapy (PDT) as an adjuvant treatment, considering clinical immunoregulatory and microbiological parameters. This randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical study will include 34 patients, both genders, having used fixed appliance for more than 12 months, with gingivitis. Participants will be divided into two groups: G1 (n = 17)- Scaling and Root Planing + PDT placebo and G2 (n = 17)- Scaling and Root Planing + PDT. In G2 the following dosimetric parameters will be used: methylene blue 0.005%, λ= 660 nanometers (nm), 9 Joules (J) per site, irradiance= 3.5Watts (W)/ centimeters (cm), radiant exposure= 318J/cm. All participants will receive oral hygiene guidance prior the curetes scaling. The clinical periodontal data to be analyzed are plaque index, gingival index and probing depth. Crevicular fluid, from 4 pre-determined sites and saliva, will be collected and analysed for IL-6, IL-1ß, IL-8, TNF-α and IL-10 cytokines using ELISA (Enzyme immunoabsorption assay) method. Total Bacteria count will also be performed, by qPCR and Universal16SrRNA gene. All analysis will be realized using in the baseline (T0), 7 (T1) and 21 (T2) days after treatment. Oral health-related quality of life will be assessed using the OHIP-14 questionnaire at times T0 and T2. If sample distribution is normal, the Student T-test will be applied if it is not normal, the Mann-Whitney test will be used. The data will be presented in terms of ±â€ŠPD and The significance level will be set at p < 0.05. Our results may improve quality of life and add data to establish a therapeutic alternative for gingivitis during the orthodontic treatment. Registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT04037709. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04037709 - Registered in July 2019.

Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of articaine in irreversible pulpitis of the mandibular molar: A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of two volumes of articaine in conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) of mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis, and in cases of anesthetic failure, its complementation with periodontal ligament injection (PDL). METHODS: Ninety patients with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular molars received conventional IANB with 1.8 mL or 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. In cases of IANB failure, the same volumes were administered in the PDL. Presence of pulpal anesthesia and absence/presence of pain during pulpectomy were evaluated by electric pulp stimulation and verbal analogue scale, respectively. Relative risks (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for each outcome. RESULTS: 27% and 42% of the patients achieved pulpal anesthesia following IANB with 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL, respectively (RR = 0.63, CI 95% 0.35 to 1.14, p = 0.12). Analgesia during pulpectomy was present in 64% and 73% of the patients, respectively, for 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL (RR = 0.87, CI 95% 0.66 to 1.16, p = 0.36). In cases of IANB failure, 75% and 42% of the patients that received 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of PDL injection, respectively, achieved pulpal anesthesia (RR = 1.80, CI 95% 0.87 to 3.72, p = 0.11). During a new attempt at the pulpectomy procedure, analgesia was present in 69% and 75% of the patients, respectively, for 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL (RR = 0.91, CI 95% 0.57 to 1.45, p = 0.71). CONCLUSION: Increasing the volume from 1.8 mL to 3.6 mL of the 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in the IANB and in the PDL, did not significantly increase the success rate of pulpal anesthesia and clinical analgesia during the pulpectomy procedure. Therefore, both volumes presented a similar efficacy, though neither resulted in effective pain control during irreversible pulpitis treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02422823.

Evaluation of photodynamic therapy in pericoronitis: Protocol of randomized, controlled, double-blind study.

INTRODUCTION: Pericoronitis is a common disease in the eruption phase of third molars, sometimes debilitating, with an impact on the quality of life. The most indicated treatment in the initial phase is the irrigation for cleanliness of the region. In order to reduce the chances of systemic dissemination of the infection and antibiotics use, it is mandatory to test effective treatments in the initial phase of pericoronitis avoiding the evolution of the infectious disease. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an interesting alternative because it is an effective antimicrobial treatment that is easy to perform and does not select bacterial resistance. The methylene blue (MB) used in PDT has been studied in an oral formulation, which optimizes the formation of monomers increasing its antimicrobial action. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of PDT with MB in an astringent vehicle in pericoronitis on the initial phase in healthy patients through microbiological, clinical, and immune response. The impact of pericoronitis on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of these patients will also be evaluated. METHOD: In this randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical bioequivalence protocol, 64 healthy patients with pericoronitis will be evaluated. Patients will be randomized into the positive control group (G1) (n = 32): irrigation with sterile saline and PDT (conventional MB at 0.005% concentration and irradiation with low intensity laser λ = 660 nm, 9J per point and radiant exposure of 318 J/cm), and the experimental group (G2) (n = 32): treatment identical to G1, however, MB will be delivered in a new formulation for oral use. Microbiological analysis will be performed by RT-PCR for the bacterium Tannerella forsythia. Gingival crevicular fluid and saliva will be collected to evaluate cytokines by Luminex assay (Luminex Corporation, Austin, TX). The pain (visual analogue scale), swelling and buccal opening (digital caliper), and OHRQoL will also be evaluated through the OHIP-14 questionnaire. The variables will be evaluated in T1 (baseline), T2 (immediately after PDT), and T3 (4th day after PDT). Registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03576105. Registered in July 2018.

Low-level laser treatment applied at auriculotherapy points to reduce postoperative pain in third molar surgery: A randomized, controlled, single-blinded study.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effectiveness of LLL (Low level laser therapy) in auriculotherapy points for pain reduction following lower third molar extractions. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, single-blinded study. METHODS: Eighty-four bilateral, symmetrical third molar surgeries were performed in 42 healthy patients using a split-mouth design. In the immediate postoperative period, each side was randomly treated in a single-blind method with an LLL at the auriculotherapy points or simulation of its use (contralateral side) over a 21-day interval. This protocol was repeated 24 and 48 hours after surgery. All patients used the same analgesic (paracetamol) but only in case of pain. The primary variable was postoperative pain according to the visual analogue scale, and the secondary variables were mouth opening, edema, local temperature, dysphagia, and the presence of infection (systemic temperature, lymphadenopathy). These variables were evaluated at baseline and at 24 hours, 48 hours and seven days after surgery. Adverse effects were recorded and reported. RESULTS: There was no difference between the groups in relation to any of the evaluated parameters (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: For this experimental model, application of a low-intensity laser at auriculotherapy points did not prevent postoperative pain following lower third molar surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov; the registration number is NCT02657174 and the Unique Protocol ID number is 1.100.869. (https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/prs/app/template/EditRecord.vm?epmode=View&listmode=Edit&uid=U0002BEY&ts=11&sid=S0006026&cx=6g4wff).

A randomized placebo-blind study of the effect of low power laser on pain caused by irreversible pulpitis.

This randomized placebo-blind study aimed to evaluate the effect of laser phototherapy (LPT) on pain caused by symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP). Sixty patients diagnosed with SIP were randomly assigned to treatment groups (n = 15): G1 (control), G2 (laser placebo-sham irradiation), G3 (laser irradiation at 780 nm, 40 mW, 4 J/cm2), and G4 (laser irradiation at 780 nm, 40 mW, 40 J/cm2). Spontaneous pain was recorded using a VAS score before (T0), immediately after (T1), and 15 min after treatment (T2). Local anesthetics failure during emergency endodontic treatment was also assessed. There was no pain difference in T1 and T2 between the experimental laser groups (G3 and G4) and the placebo group (G2). The 4-J/cm2 (G3) irradiation resulted in significant increase in the local anesthetics failure in lower jar teeth. This effect could be suggested as consequence of the LPT improvement in local circulation and vasodilatation that would result in the increase of local anesthetic agent absorption. The application of 780-nm diode laser irradiation, at 4 and 40 J/cm2, showed no effect in reducing the pain in SIP in comparison to the placebo group. The fluence of 4 J/cm2 showed a negative effect in local anesthetics, resulting in significant increase of complimentary local anesthesia during emergency endodontic treatment. This work provides evidence of the consequence of LPT application on teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. LPT should be avoided in teeth with pain due to irreversible pulpitis.

Evaluation of low-level laser at auriculotherapy points to reduce postoperative pain in inferior third molar surgery: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A comfortable postoperative return to daily activities has increased the need to control inflammation after third molar surgery. Anti-inflammatory drugs and analgesics are not exempt from adverse effects such as allergies and chronic gastritis, and they are not without cost. The association between low-level laser and auricular acupuncture can be an alternative when conventional drugs are contraindicated. Among its advantages, we can mention the low risk of side effects, low cost and simplicity of application. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficiency of low-level laser at auriculotherapy points in reducing postoperative pain in lower third molar surgery. METHODS/DESIGN: Ninety bilateral, symmetrical lower third molar surgeries will be performed in 45 healthy patients. Each patient will be their own control, through a split-mouth crossover study. One side of the mouth will be randomly chosen and, immediately after surgery, will be treated with low-level laser. After 21 days, the contralateral side will be operated on with low-level laser simulation used postoperatively. This regimen (laser application or not) will be repeated at 24 and 48 h after surgery. All patients will be requested to take analgesics (acetaminophen) if they have pain, i.e. in case of pain. Neither the surgeon nor the patients will know the assigned treatment. The primary variable will be postoperative pain assessed using a Visual Analog Scale, and the secondary variables will be trismus, edema, local temperature, dysphagia, presence of infection and painkiller ingestion. These variables will be assessed at baseline, 24 h, 48 h and 7 days after surgery. Blood samples for systemic inflammatory cytokine (TNF-α, IL-1, IL-6 and IL-8) analysis will be assessed at baseline and 24 h after surgery. DISCUSSION: Some authors believe that using a wavelength of 633 to 670 nm is a good option for laser therapy in the field of acupuncture. This wavelength can penetrate biological tissue to a depth of about 3 mm. However, for auriculotherapy points, the stimulus (mustard seeds, needles 1 to 2.5 mm) does not penetrate so deeply. For this reason, we chose a laser wavelength of 660 nm (red wavelength). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02657174 , registered on 11 January 2016.

Anesthetic Efficacy in Irreversible Pulpitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Inferior alveolar nerve block has a high failure rate in the treatment of mandibular posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis. The aim of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine, 2% lidocaine and 2% mepivacaine, all in combination with 1:100,000 epinephrine, in patients with irreversible pulpitis of permanent mandibular molars during a pulpectomy procedure. Sixty-six volunteers from the Emergency Center of the School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, randomly received 3.6 mL of local anesthetic as a conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). The subjective signal of lip numbness, pulpal anesthesia and absence of pain during the pulpectomy procedure were evaluated respectively, by questioning the patient, stimulation using an electric pulp tester and a verbal analogue scale. All patients reported the subjective signal of lip numbness. Regarding pulpal anesthesia success as measured with the pulp tester, the success rate was respectively 68.2% for mepivacaine, 63.6% for articaine and 63.6% for lidocaine. Regarding patients who reported no pain or mild pain during the pulpectomy, the success rate was, respectively 72.7% for mepivacaine, 63.6% for articaine and 54.5% for lidocaine. These differences were not statistically significant. Neither of the solutions resulted in 100% anesthetic success in patients with irreversible pulpitis of mandibular molars.

Comparison of the Anesthetic Efficacy of Mepivacaine and Lidocaine in Patients with Irreversible Pulpitis: A Double-blind Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 2% mepivacaine combined with 1:100,000 epinephrine with 2% lidocaine combined with 1:100,000 epinephrine during pulpectomy of mandibular posterior teeth in patients with irreversible pulpitis. METHODS: Forty-two patients with irreversible pulpitis who were admitted to the Emergency Center at the University of São Paulo School of Dentistry volunteered to take part in the study and were randomized to receive conventional inferior alveolar nerve block containing 1.8 or 3.6 mL of either 2% mepivacaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. We recorded patients' subjective assessments of lip anesthesia, absence/presence of pulpal anesthesia tested by using electric pulp stimulation, and absence/presence of pain during the subsequent pulpectomy by using a verbal analogue scale. RESULTS: All patients tested reported lip anesthesia after application of either type of inferior alveolar nerve block. Pulpal anesthesia success rates measured by using the pulp tester were satisfactory for both solutions (86% for mepivacaine and 67% for lidocaine). Success rates according to patient report of no pain or mild pain during pulpectomy were higher for mepivacaine solution (55%) than for lidocaine solution (14%). The differences between mepivacaine and lidocaine were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Mepivacaine resulted in effective pain control during irreversible pulpitis treatments. The success rates with either solution were not high enough to ensure complete pulpal anesthesia.

Anesthetic Efficacy in Irreversible Pulpitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract Inferior alveolar nerve block has a high failure rate in the treatment of mandibular posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis. The aim of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine, 2% lidocaine and 2% mepivacaine, all in combination with 1:100,000 epinephrine, in patients with irreversible pulpitis of permanent mandibular molars during a pulpectomy procedure. Sixty-six volunteers from the Emergency Center of the School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, randomly received 3.6 mL of local anesthetic as a conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). The subjective signal of lip numbness, pulpal anesthesia and absence of pain during the pulpectomy procedure were evaluated respectively, by questioning the patient, stimulation using an electric pulp tester and a verbal analogue scale. All patients reported the subjective signal of lip numbness. Regarding pulpal anesthesia success as measured with the pulp tester, the success rate was respectively 68.2% for mepivacaine, 63.6% for articaine and 63.6% for lidocaine. Regarding patients who reported no pain or mild pain during the pulpectomy, the success rate was, respectively 72.7% for mepivacaine, 63.6% for articaine and 54.5% for lidocaine. These differences were not statistically significant. Neither of the solutions resulted in 100% anesthetic success in patients with irreversible pulpitis of mandibular molars.

Resumo O bloqueio do nervo alveolar inferior apresenta uma alta taxa de falha para o tratamento de dentes posteriores mandibulares com pulpite irreversível. O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar a eficácia anestésica da articaína 4%, lidocaína 2% e mepivacaína 2%, todas em combinação com epinefrina 1:100.000, em pacientes com pulpite irreversível de molares mandibulares durante um procedimento de pulpectomia. Sessenta e seis voluntários do Centro de Emergência da Faculdade de Odontologia da Universidade de São Paulo receberam aleatoriamente 3.6 mL de anestésico local no bloqueio convencional do nervo alveolar inferior (BNAI). O sinal subjetivo de dormência do lábio, anestesia pulpar e ausência de dor durante o procedimento de pulpectomia foram, respectivamente, avaliados pelo interrogatório do paciente, usando um estimulador pulpar elétrico e uma escala analógica verbal. Todos os pacientes relataram o sinal subjetivo de dormência do lábio. Em relação ao sucesso da anestesia pulpar medido com o Pulp Tester, a taxa de sucesso foi, respectivamente, 68.2% para mepivacaína, 63,6% para articaína e 63,6% para lidocaína. Relativamente aos pacientes que relataram nenhuma dor ou dor leve, durante a pulpectomia, a taxa de sucesso foi, respectivamente, 72.7% para mepivacaína, 63.6% para articaína e 54,5% para a lidocaína. Estas diferenças não foram estatisticamente significantes. Nenhuma das soluções resultou em 100% de sucesso anestésico em pacientes com pulpite irreversível de molares mandibulares.

Antibiotic therapy in fully impacted lower third molar surgery: randomized three-arm, double-blind, controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of three drug protocols in patients undergoing extraction of fully impacted lower third molars. METHODS: Eighty surgeries were performed on healthy patients using three randomized double-blind drug protocols: group 1 (G1), amoxicillin (1 g) 1 h before surgery + 500 mg 8/8 h for 7 days; group 2 (G2), 1-g amoxicillin 1 h before surgery plus placebo, with identical appearance to G1, 8/8 h for 7 days; and group 3 (G3), placebo 1 h before surgery and 500 mg 8/8 h for 7 days. The primary outcome criterion was mouth opening, and the secondary outcome criteria were facial edema and pain. Signals as body temperature, lymphadenopathy, and dysphagia characterize the sample. Evaluation was performed at baseline and on the 4th and 7th postoperative days by the same researcher. RESULTS: There was no difference among groups with respect to any of the parameters evaluated (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Under these experimental conditions, there is no advantage in the administration of antibiotics in healthy patients undergoing extraction of fully impacted lower third molars with a controlled aseptic chain.

Postoperative pain after bupivacaine supplementation in mandibular third molar surgery: splint-mouth randomized double blind controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Efficacy of anesthetic supplementation with bupivacaine to control both pain and the number of analgesics ingested after surgery has been proposed; however, no report was found in the literature regarding supplemental use of bupivacaine. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of bupivacaine in appeasing postoperative pain, when used as supplemental anesthesia at the end of surgeries to extract mandibular third molars. METHODS: Eighty surgeries were performed in 40 healthy ASA I patients of mandibular bilateral, semi-enclosed, and symmetrical third molars, in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and split-mouth clinical trial. Two procedures were performed. In one case, a preoperative anesthetic block was performed with bupivacaine (0.5 %) and epinephrine (1:200,000). Supplementation with the same anesthetic composition was used at the end of the surgery (test group). In the second case (control group), the procedure was identical to that used in the test group, but was supplemented in a randomized double-blind trial with saline (placebo), using the split-mouth method. Postoperative pain (measured with a visual analog scale) was the primary variable studied, and analgesic consumption was the secondary variable. Nonparametric analysis of variance (Wilcoxon test) and a two-tailed test to determine the ratio was used. P value was set at 0.05. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) was found in the variables studied. An adverse effect related to the anesthetic under study was not observed. CONCLUSION: There is no appreciable value to the second injection regarding pain and analgesia use, but there was a difference regarding patient acceptance in surgeries of mandibular semi-enclosed and impacted third molars.

Onset and duration period of pulpal anesthesia of articaine and lidocaine in inferior alveolar nerve block.

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double blind study was to compare the onset and duration periods of pulpal anesthesia using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). Thirty subjects received 1.8 mL of each of the three local anesthetic solutions in IANB. Onset and duration periods of pulpal anesthesia were determined using electric pulp stimulation. The mean time of onset of pulpal anesthesia was 8.7, 7.4 and 7.7 min and the mean duration of pulpal anesthesia was 61.8, 106.6 and 88.0 min for 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, respectively. For onset, there was only a significant difference between 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (p=0.037). For duration, there was significant difference for all the local anesthetic solutions (p≤0.05). In conclusion, 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine exhibited faster onset and also had longest duration of pulpal anesthesia in IANB.

Onset and Duration Period of Pulpal Anesthesia of Articaine and Lidocaine in Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double blind study was to compare the onset and duration periods of pulpal anesthesia using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). Thirty subjects received 1.8 mL of each of the three local anesthetic solutions in IANB. Onset and duration periods of pulpal anesthesia were determined using electric pulp stimulation. The mean time of onset of pulpal anesthesia was 8.7, 7.4 and 7.7 min and the mean duration of pulpal anesthesia was 61.8, 106.6 and 88.0 min for 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, respectively. For onset, there was only a significant difference between 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (p=0.037). For duration, there was significant difference for all the local anesthetic solutions (p≤0.05). In conclusion, 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine exhibited faster onset and also had longest duration of pulpal anesthesia in IANB.

A proposta deste estudo prospectivo, randomizado e duplo cego foi comparar o período de latência e duração da anestesia pulpar utilizando lidocaina 2% com epinefrina 1:100.000, articaina 4% com epinefrina 1:100.000 e articaina 4% com epinefrina 1:200.000 no bloqueio do nervo alveolar inferior (BNAI). Trinta pacientes receberam 1,8 mL de cada uma das soluções anestésicas no BNAI. Os períodos de latência e duração da anestesia pulpar foram determinados usando estimulação pulpar elétrica. O tempo médio da latência da anestesia pulpar foi 8,7, 7,4 e 7,7 min e da duração média da anestesia pulpar foi 61,8, 106,6 e 88,0 min para lidocaina 2% com epinefrina 1:100.000, articaina 4% com epinefrina 1:100.000 e articaina 4% com epinefrina 1:200.000, respectivamente. Para latência houve somente diferença significante entre lidocaina 2% com epinefrina 1:100.000 e articaina 4% com epinefrina 1:100.000 (p=0,037). Para a duração houve diferença significante para todas as soluções anestésicas locais (p≤0,05). Em conclusão, articaina 4% com epinefrina 1:100.000 exibiu mais rápida latência e também obteve mais longa duração da anestesia pulpar no BNAI.

Comparative analysis of preemptive analgesic effect of dexamethasone and diclofenac following third molar surgery

The objective of the study was to compare the analgesic effectiveness of dexamethasone and diclofenac sodium administered preemptively after surgical removal of third molars. Forty-four ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) I patients (19 men, 35 women; 16–28 years old) randomly and double-blindly received diclofenac sodium (50 mg) or dexamethasone (8 mg) or placebo 1 h before surgery. Intensity of pain, measured with a visual analog scale (VAS), was the variable studied at different postoperative times (1 h, 2 h, 3 h, 6 h, 8 h, 12 h, 48 h, 4 d and 7 d). The total amount of rescue medication (TARM) ingested (paracetamol) was another variable of the study. The Kruskal-Wallis statistical test was used. A p value of < .05 was adopted to reject the null hypothesis. The dexamethasone group showed lower pain intensity (p < .05) than the diclofenac sodium and placebo groups (p < .05). No difference in TARM was observed among the groups (p < .05). Preemptively administered, dexamethasone was effective in controlling postoperative pain.

Comparative analysis of preemptive analgesic effect of dexamethasone and diclofenac following third molar surgery.

The objective of the study was to compare the analgesic effectiveness of dexamethasone and diclofenac sodium administered preemptively after surgical removal of third molars. Forty-four ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) I patients (19 men, 35 women; 16-28 years old) randomly and double-blindly received diclofenac sodium (50 mg) or dexamethasone (8 mg) or placebo 1 h before surgery. Intensity of pain, measured with a visual analog scale (VAS), was the variable studied at different postoperative times (1 h, 2 h, 3 h, 6 h, 8 h, 12 h, 48 h, 4 d and 7 d). The total amount of rescue medication (TARM) ingested (paracetamol) was another variable of the study. The Kruskal-Wallis statistical test was used. A p value of < .05 was adopted to reject the null hypothesis. The dexamethasone group showed lower pain intensity (p < .05) than the diclofenac sodium and placebo groups (p < .05). No difference in TARM was observed among the groups (p < .05). Preemptively administered, dexamethasone was effective in controlling postoperative pain.

Assessment of preemptive analgesia with ibuprofen coadministered or not with dexamethasone in third molar surgery: a randomized double-blind controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: There is no conclusive evidence from clinical trial studies regarding preemptive analgesic interventions. Clinical trials are necessary to evaluate the efficacy of preemptive analgesic interventions already demonstrated in animal studies. Thus, it is necessary to evaluate the analgesic effect of preoperative administration of ibuprofen alone or coadministered with dexamethasone after third molar surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, and controlled clinical trial was conducted with 94 bilateral symmetrical third molar surgeries. Preemptive analgesic medication was randomly defined: ibuprofen or placebo and ibuprofen + dexamethasone or placebo was administered to patients who served as their own control (split mouth). The variables analyzed were postoperative pain through visual analog scale (VAS), total number of rescue analgesic (TNRA), and patient satisfaction. Data were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS: There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between ibuprofen and placebo for postoperative pain (VAS) and TNRA. Patients consumed less analgesics (TNRA) for dexamethasone + ibuprofen (p < 0.05) and felt more comfortable in the postoperative period after surgery (p < 0.05). DISCUSSION: The preemptive analgesia with ibuprofen was insufficient to inhibit central sensitization, whereas its association with dexamethasone was more effective in preventing pain in third molar surgery.

Use of large-volume cone-beam computed tomography in identification and localization of horizontal root fracture in the presence and absence of intracanal metallic post.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of the study was to evaluate the ability of large-volume cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) to detect horizontal root fracture and to test the influence of a metallic post. METHODS: Through the examination of 40 teeth by large-volume CBCT (20-cm height and 15-cm diameter cylinder) at 0.2-mm voxel resolution, 2 observers analyzed the samples for the presence and localization of horizontal root fracture. RESULTS: The values of accuracy in the groups that had no metallic post ranged from 33%-68%, whereas for the samples with the metallic post, values showed a wide variation (38%-83%). Intraobserver agreement showed no statistically significant difference between the groups with/without metallic post; both ranged from very weak to weak (kappa, 0.09-0.369). CONCLUSIONS: The low accuracy and low intraobserver and interobserver agreement reflect the difficulty in performing an adequate diagnosis of horizontal root fractures through a large-volume CBCT by using a small voxel reconstruction.

Comparison of the anesthetic efficacy between bupivacaine and lidocaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis of mandibular molar.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine with that of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine during pulpectomy in patients with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth. METHODS: Seventy volunteers, patients with irreversible pulpitis admitted to the Emergency Center of the School of Dentistry at the University of São Paulo, randomly received a conventional inferior alveolar nerve block containing 3.6 mL of either 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine or 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. During the subsequent pulpectomy, we recorded the patients' subjective assessments of lip anesthesia, the absence/presence of pulpal anesthesia through electric pulp stimulation, and the absence/presence of pain through a verbal analog scale. RESULTS: All patients reported lip anesthesia after the application of either inferior alveolar nerve block. By measuring pulpal anesthesia success with the pulp tester, lidocaine had a higher success rate (42.9%) than bupivacaine (20%). For patients reporting none or mild pain during pulpectomy, the success rate of bupivacaine was 80% and lidocaine was 62.9%. There were only statistically significant differences to the success of pulpal anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Neither of the solutions resulted in an effective pain control during irreversible pulpitis treatments of mandibular molars.

O que é, e como diagnosticar, a pericoronarite / What is pericoronitis and how is it diagnosed

A pericoronarite é um quadro inflamatório no tecido mole que recobre parcialmente a coroa de um dente semi-irrompido. Os terceiros molares inferiores são, geralmente, os mais acometidos; clinicamente, é observada a presença de tecido eritematoso; e, muitas vezes, pode evoluir para um estado infeccioso, apresentando coleção purulenta, drenando espontaneamente ou não...

Qual seria o protocolo medicamentoso adequado para as cirurgias de implantes osseointegrados? / What would be the appropriate drug regimen after surgery for placement of osseointegrated implants?

A opção por determinados medicamentos quando da realização de implantes osseointegrados constitui uma dúvida cotidiana na prática clínica odontológica, que vai desde os cuidados prévios à realização do procedimento, no momento da antissepsia intra e extrabucal, até as medicações pós-operatórias, incluindo o questionamento sobre realizar ou não a profilaxia antibiótica, assim como as opções para analgesia.