Safety of buccal infiltration local anaesthesia for dental procedures.

AIM: To assess the safety of buccal infiltration local anaesthetic (LA) without additional factor replacement in patients with haemophilia (PWH) and association with clinical experience of the operator. METHODS: A consecutive sample of participants with mild, moderate and severe haemophilia scheduled to have dental treatment were recruited from a comprehensive care centre in Ireland. Infiltration LA was administered using a standard technique. Safety was defined as any adverse event at time of administration, immediate postoperative, or postoperative period. Clinical experience was dichotomized into fewer or greater than three years clinical experience. RESULTS: N = 135 buccal infiltration LAs without additional factor replacement were provided to N = 71 participants with mild (n = 20; 28%) and moderate to severe haemophilia (n = 51; 72%). Successful local anaesthesia was achieved in n = 133 cases (99%). No (0%) adverse bleeding events were recorded for any participants at time of administration of LA or during follow-up. Three out of 135 (2.2%) LAs recorded superficial bleeding 30 seconds after administration of LA, all of which resolved within 2 minutes with application of pressure; 4 out of 135 (3%) LAs produced a superficial haematoma at the site of injection no greater than 2 mm all of which resolved at 4 minutes. There were no differences in bleeding rates between clinicians by level of experience (P = 0.435) or by severity of bleeding disorder (P = 1.0). CONCLUSION: Local anaesthetic is safe to administer via buccal infiltration for people with mild, moderate and severe haemophilia without additional factor cover. This finding holds true regardless of operator experience.

Quantitative assessment of oral phase efficiency: validation of the Test of Masticating and Swallowing Solids (TOMASS).

BACKGROUND: The Test of Masticating and Swallowing Solids (TOMASS) has been developed to provide clinicians with objective data regarding the efficiency of oral phase function and solid bolus ingestion. AIMS: To determine if the TOMASS will detect changes in the oral phase of swallowing imposed by topical anaesthesia, thus providing validation of its clinical utility. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Per the standard protocol, 10 healthy participants ate one-quarter of an Arnotts SaladaTM biscuit. The number of bites per cracker, number of masticatory cycles, number of swallows and total time taken were recorded at baseline, following application of topical oral anaesthetic; this was additionally compared with a post-anaesthetic condition. Median and interquartile range (IQR) were calculated. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were conducted to evaluate trial effect, and Friedman's tests were used to detect differences in the number of bites, number of swallows, number of chews and time taken to eat the crackers. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Results indicated that the number of both bites and swallows did not significantly change across conditions (χ²(2) = 0.105, p = 0.949, χ²(2) = 1.357, p = 0.507); however, the number of chews for the anaesthetic condition was significantly higher when compared with the baseline (p = 0.02) and post-anaesthesia conditions (p = 0.02). Further, the durations of ingestion in the anaesthetic condition were significantly longer than the baseline (p = 0.01) and post-anaesthesia (p = 0.01) conditions. Across all measures, there were no differences between baseline and post-anaesthesia conditions. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Although further exploration is required, these early data suggest the TOMASS is a sensitive measure in the evaluation of the oral-phase preparation of solid textures.

Effect of topical nasal anesthetic on swallowing in healthy adults: A double-blind, high-resolution manometry study.

OBJECTIVE: Topical nasal anesthetic (TNA) is used when evaluating pharyngeal swallowing with high-resolution manometry (HRM). It is unclear if desensitizing the nasal mucosa improves procedure tolerability or affects pharyngeal pressure. This study evaluated the effects of TNA on comfort and pharyngeal pressure using HRM. METHODS: A double-blinded study was conducted with 20 healthy participants ( x¯ = 27 years). Participants performed five saliva and five 10-mL swallows during two exams with ManoScan HRM ESO catheter (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) randomized under placebo (nonanesthetic lubricant) and anesthetized (0.4 mL of 2% viscous lidocaine hydrochloride) conditions. Comfort was rated using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Pharyngeal HRM amplitude and timing were analyzed. RESULTS: VAS ratings were similar under placebo (mean = 38.4, standard deviation [SD] = 19.92) and TNA conditions (mean = 33.78, SD = 18.9), with no significant differences between placebo and anesthetized conditions (t[19] = 1.23, P = 0.23) or tolerability at first and second procedure (t[19] = 1.38, P = 0.18). Lower maximum and mean pharyngeal pressure were found for the TNA condition when compared to placebo (dry: maximum [-15.45 mmHg, standard error (SE) = 5.06 mmHg, P = 0.021]; mean [-5.22 mmHg, SE = 1.58 mmHg, P = 0.005]), and (liquid: maximum [-14.79 mmHg, SE = 5.01 mmHg, P = 0.010]; mean [-2.79 mmHg, SE = 1.99 mmHg, P = 0.008]). CONCLUSION: This double-blind, randomized study is the first to investigate effects of TNA on tolerability and pharyngeal pressure using HRM. Results indicate TNA offered no significant difference in procedure comfort while affecting the magnitude of pharyngeal swallowing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 128:1335-1339, 2018.