A comprehensive review of oral microenvironment changes and orofacial adverse reactions after COVID-19 vaccination: The good, the bad, and the ugly.

Background and Aims: Anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines have the potential to alter several biological systems concurrently with remolding the immune system, most of which are related to immunization, while some others are known as adverse effects. This review aims to explore the potential effects of vaccination on the oral microenvironment and classifies them as good, bad, or ugly, with a brief review of facial diseases following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination. Methods: This study was a comprehensive review conducted through searching related articles in Medline, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. Results: On one side, the "Good" impacts of vaccination on the oro-nasal mucosa are explained as if the mucosal immune responses followed by SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are enough to provide immunity. On the other side, the possible "Bad" and "Ugly" effects of the vaccine, which manifest as orofacial adverse events and autoimmune reactivations, respectively, should be noted. Exacerbation of pre-existing autoimmune conditions such as lichen planus, pemphigus vulgaris, bullous pemphigoid, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome have been reported. Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccines could affect different biological systems alongside stimulating the immune system, and some of these effects are referred to as adverse effects. Nonetheless, these adverse effects are treatable, and healthcare professionals should not prevent patients from taking the first available vaccination.

The association of endodontic prognostic factors with the presence of periapical lesion, its volume, and bone characteristics in endodontically treated molars: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: This study intended to evaluate the association between several endodontic prognostic factors with the presence of periapical lesions (PLs), their volume, and bone characteristics including cortical bone destruction (CBD) and buccal plate bone height (BPBH) in root-filled molar teeth using cone-beam computed tomography. METHODS: A collection of 143 scans of endodontically treated maxillary/mandibular first or second molars recorded over 8 years, were obtained from a specialized radiology center. Data on prognostic factors including tooth number, gender, jaw type, the status and number of missed canals, obturation length, restoration type, presence of a separated instrument, presence of a post or screw in the canals, and presence of perforation were collected. The assessed outcomes included PL presence, PL volume, CBD, and BPBH. The association between prognostic factors and outcomes was evaluated using multiple logistic regression models with adjusted covariates and multifactorial ANOVA at a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 282 molars from 82 women and 50 men with a mean age of 40.6 ± 12.27 were included. Among those, 139 teeth presented PL with a mean volume of 18.68 mm3. CBD was prevalent in 137 teeth and the mean BPBH appeared to be 9.45 mm. The presence of a missed canal (OR = 10.022, P < .05), underfilled canal (OR = 3.725, P < .05), overfilled canal (OR = 15.859, P = .018), and perforation (OR = 15.261, P = .013) was significantly associated with PLs. None of the prognostic factors could considerably contribute to the CBD (P > .05). The presence of a missed canal was positively associated with the PL volume (P < .05). Similarly, missed canals (P < .05), perforation (P < .05), and separated instruments (P = .004) were associated with a significantly reduced BPBH. CONCLUSIONS: Overfillings, perforations, missed canals, and underfillings were identified as remarkable predictors of PL, arranged in descending order of their respective impact. The only factor capable of significantly increasing the PL volume was the missed canal. In brief, obturation length errors, perforations, missed canals, and separated instruments were robustly correlated with endodontic failure, which highlights the importance of mitigating the potential for errors by following the fundamentals of endodontics.

Primary and supplementary anesthetic efficacy of a modified two-step buccal infiltration of 4% articaine in mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a modified two-step buccal infiltration (MBI) of 1.7 mL 4% articaine as primary or supplemental anesthesia in mandibular first and second molars diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and eight patients with SIP were randomly assigned to one of three groups (n = 36). They were given an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) of 2% lidocaine with 1:80.000 epinephrine or a primary MBI of 4% articaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine in the IANB and MBI groups, respectively. Patients in the IANB + MBI group received an IANB followed by an MBI. Pain levels during the injection, access cavity preparation, and initial filing were recorded on the Heft-Parker visual analog scale (HP-VAS). No or mild pain (HP-VAS ≤ 54) upon access cavity preparation and initial filing was considered a success. Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: MBI (77.8%) and IANB + MBI (94.4%) had both significantly higher success rates than IANB (50.0%) (P < .001). However, when the Bonferroni adjustment was applied, there was no statistically significant difference between the MBI and IANB + MBI techniques (P = .041 > .017). MBI was associated with significantly less injection pain than IANB (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Both primary and supplemental MBI with 4% articaine were superior to IANB with 2% lidocaine in mandibular first and second molars diagnosed with SIP. Further research may be needed to confirm the findings of this study. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The findings of this study suggest that supplemental or primary MBI can be a clinically viable alternative to IANB, which has a relatively low success rate when managing mandibular molars diagnosed with SIP.

Analgesic Efficacy of Ibuprofen and Diclofenac Potassium on Postoperative Endodontic Pain in Maxillary and Mandibular First Molars with Irreversible Pulpitis: A Randomised Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The management of postoperative endodontic pain (PEP) is essential to contemporary endodontic practice. Diclofenac and ibuprofen (IBU) are two of the most widely-used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory analgesics. However, their comparative data are neither sufficient nor conclusive. This prospective randomised clinical trial aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of diclofenac potassium (DFK) with IBU on PEP in maxillary and mandibular first molars diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis after single-visit non-surgical root canal treatment. METHODS: Sixty-four patients were randomised into two groups of DFK (n=32) and IBU (n=32), using the stratified permuted randomisation method, and 61 participants completed the trial. After root canal treatment, patients randomly received IBU 400 mg every 6 hours (n=31) or DFK 50 mg every 8 hours (n=30) for 24 hours. Patients recorded their pain level on 0-100 mm visual analogue scales (VAS) at 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours after the treatment. Recorded VAS scores and the number of pain-free patients (VAS<5) were compared between the two groups. A generalised linear estimation equation model, Chi-Square test, and Mann-Whitney U test were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: The mean overall PEP score was statistically significantly lower in the DFK group than the IBU group with a p value of 0.030. Pain scores at 2 (p=0.034), 4 (p=0.021), and 24 hours (p=0.042) after the treatment were also significantly lower for DFK than IBU. The number of pain-free patients was also significantly higher in the DFK group at 2-hour (p=0.015) and 4-hour (p=0.048) time points and overall (p=0.013) compared to the IBU group. There was no adverse effect observed in either group. CONCLUSION: Based on the results, taking multi-dose DFK 50 mg by the clock had better analgesic outcomes than multi-dose IBU 400 mg for PEP management. (EEJ-2022-01-07).

Antibacterial efficacy of antibiotic pastes versus calcium hydroxide intracanal dressing: A systematic review and meta-analysis of ex vivo studies.

Background: Conflicting findings on the potency of antibiotic pastes versus calcium hydroxide (CH) have been evident in the literature. Aims: To compare the antibacterial efficacy of single antibiotic paste (SAP), double antibiotic paste (DAP), triple antibiotic paste (TAP), and modified TAP (mTAP) with CH on bacterial biofilms. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were comprehensively searched until August 23, 2021. The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO. Ex vivo studies performed on Enterococcus faecalis or polymicrobial biofilms incubated on human/bovine dentin were selected. The quality of the studies was assessed using a customized quality assessment tool. Standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for the meta-analysis. Meta-regression models were used to identify the sources of heterogeneity and to compare the efficacy of pastes. Results: The qualitative and quantitative synthesis included 40 and 23 papers, respectively, out of 1421 search results. TAP (SMD = -3.82; CI, -5.44 to -2.21; P < 0.001) and SAPs (SMD = -2.38; CI, -2.81 to - 1.94; P < 0.001) had significantly higher antibacterial efficacy compared to the CH on E. faecalis biofilm. However, no significant difference was found between the efficacy of DAP (SMD = -2.74; CI, -5.56-0.07; P = 0.06) or mTAP (SMD = -0.28; CI, -0.82-0.26; P = 0.31) and CH. Meta-regression model on E. faecalis showed that SAPs have similar efficacy compared to TAP and significantly better efficacy than DAP. On dual-species (SMD = 0.15; CI, -1.00-1.29; P = 0.80) or multi-species (SMD = 0.23; CI, -0.08-0.55; P = 0.15) biofilms, DAP and CH had similar efficacy. Conclusions: Ex vivo evidence showed that antibiotic pastes were either superior or equal to CH. The studied SAPs had considerably higher or similar antibacterial effectiveness compared to DAP, CH, and TAP. Hence, combined antibiotic therapy was not necessarily required for root canal disinfection ex vivo.

Anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration versus intraligamentary injection in mandibular first and second molars with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized clinical trial.

Background: To compare the anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration (BI) (1.7 ml) versus intraligamentary (IL) injection containing 0.4 ml of 4% articaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine after an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 1.7 ml 2% lidocaine in the first and second mandibular molars diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis (IP). Methods: One hundred subjects diagnosed with IP of either the mandibular first (n = 50) or second molars (n = 50) and failed profound anesthesia following an IANB were selected. They randomly received either the IL or BI techniques of anesthesia. Pain scores on a 170 mm Heft-Parker visual analog scale were recorded initially, before, and during supplemental injections. Furthermore, pulse rate was measured before and after each supplemental injection. During the access cavity preparation and initial filing, no or mild pain was assumed to indicate anesthetic success. The chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U test, and independent samples t-test were used for the analyses. Results: The overall success rates were 80% in the IL group and 74% in the BI group, with no significant difference (P = 0.63). In the first molars, there was no significant difference between the two techniques (P = 0.088). In the second molars, IL injection resulted in a significantly higher success rate (P = 0.017) than BI. IL injection was statistically more successful (P = 0.034) in the second molars (92%) than in the first molars (68%). However, BI was significantly more successful (P = 0.047) in the first molars (88%) than in the second molars (64%). The mean pulse rate increase was significantly higher in the IL group than in the BI group (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Both the IL and BI techniques were advantageous when used as supplemental injections. However, more favorable outcomes were observed when the second molars received IL injection and the first molars received BI.

Clinical, Radiographic, and Histologic Outcomes of Regenerative Endodontic Treatment in Human Immature Teeth Using Different Biological Scaffolds: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biological scaffolds such as blood clot (BC), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), and platelet pellet (PP) are used in regenerative endodontic treatments (RETs). OBJECTIVE: To systematically and quantitatively evaluate clinical, radiographic, and histologic outcomes of RET studies using different biological scaffolds. METHODS: MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane library, and Embase were searched to identify studies on RET procedures with any scaffold type performed on immature non-vital human teeth, employing any type of biological scaffold. Clinical, radiographic, and histologic outcomes were extracted. Cochrane collaboration risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used for quality assessment. Random and fixed model meta-analysis was carried out with 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were included in the qualitative analysis from the primarily retrieved 1895 studies. Only one study had high risk of bias and 71.8% of the studies had high quality. None of the studies reported any histologic findings. Thirty studies were included in meta-analysis. Clinical success rate of RET using either BC, PRP, or PRF was >99%. Furthermore, 32%, 23%, and 27% of BC, PRP, and PRF cases regained vitality, respectively. Periapical healing was seen in 67%, 75%, and 100% of BC, PRP, and PRF cases, respectively. There was no statistical difference between BC, PRP, or PRF regarding clinical success or any radiographic outcomes. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference between BC, PRP, and PRF in terms of clinical and radiographic outcomes. When it is difficult or dangerous to induce bleeding in root canals, PRP and PRF may be employed instead.