Local anaesthesia for surgical extraction of mandibular third molars: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Additional pre-extubation local anaesthetic application to improve the postoperative course in orthognathic surgery: a randomised controlled trial

A clinical trial was performed to assess the analgesic efficacy of adding ropivacaine pre-extubation for pain management after bimaxillary osteotomy. Forty-eight patients were assigned to receive general anaesthesia followed by either a single pre-incisional infiltration with lidocaine (control group, n = 24) or the same pre-incisional infiltration with lidocaine and an additional second infiltration with ropivacaine before awakening (test group, n = 24). Postoperative pain was assessed subjectively using a visual analogue scale and objectively based on the frequency of postoperative rescue opioid consumption. The dose of opioids (methadone) consumed and frequency of postoperative-nausea-vomiting were also recorded. Patients who received the two infiltrations of local anaesthetic had better results in terms of lesser pain during the first 8 hours postoperative (P<0.001 at 2 and 4 hours; P = 0.028 at 8 h), a lesser need for rescue opioids (P = 0.020) and lower doses of rescue opioids (P = 0.011), and consequently a lesser incidence of postoperative-nausea-vomiting (0-4 hours postoperative, P<0.03). The results obtained suggest that the infiltration of an additional dose of local anaesthetic is a simple strategy for reducing pain perception and opioid use, and for ensuring greater patient comfort after bimaxillary osteotomy.

Analgesic effect of a lidocaine-ropivacaine mixture for extraction of impacted mandibular third molars: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The painless postoperative period can be significantly prolonged by using long-acting local anesthetics such as ropivacaine, though these local anesthetics are known for their slower onset of action. To compensate for this, a mixture of short-onset (e.g., lidocaine) and long-acting local anesthetics is used. However, the efficacy of such an anesthetic cocktail has not been elucidated in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To address the research purpose, this prospective randomized controlled trial included 56 patients scheduled for impacted mandibular third molar extraction. All patients received the inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) using either 2% lidocaine with epinephrine or a 1:1 mixture of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine and 0.75% ropivacaine.

RESULTS

Patients anesthetized using the lidocaine-ropivacaine mixture showed significantly prolonged postoperative analgesia and pain control than those anesthetized using lidocaine only.

CONCLUSIONS

IANB using a lidocaine-ropivacaine mixture can provide prolonged postoperative anesthesia and pain control with extraction of mandibular third molars.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This method can be a noteworthy addition to existing methods of local anesthesia for the extraction of mandibular third molars. Trial registration number University Hospital Medical Information Network (No. UMIN000044315).

Clonidine versus Adrenaline as an Adjunct to Lignocaine on Haemodynamic Parameters during Nerve Block for Third Molar Surgical Removal - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Adrenaline or clonidine is used as adjuncts in conjunction with lignocaine to improve the depth of local anaesthesia in dental procedures.

Objectives

This systematic review and meta-analysis intends to compare the haemodynamic parameters when clonidine or adrenaline is used in conjunction with lignocaine for third-molar surgical removal.

Data Sources

Cochrane, PubMed and Ovid SP databases were searched using "MeSH" terms (((nerve block) OR (IANB)) AND ((clonidine) OR (adrenaline))) AND (lignocaine).

Study Eligibility Criteria

Clinical studies where Clonidine + lignocaine and Adrenaline + lignocaine were compared directly during nerve block administration exclusively for third molar surgical removal were selected.

Participants Study Appraisal

This current systematic review is registered in Prospero database CRD42021279446. Two independent reviewers were involved in collection, segregation and analysis of electronic data. The data were compiled in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Search was conducted till June 2021.

Synthesis Methods

Qualitative analysis of the selected articles was performed for systematic review. Meta-analysis is performed using RevMan 5 Software. Heterogeneity through the I2 statistics. Change in the haemodynamic parameters was the primary outcome evaluated, and secondary outcomes evaluated were onset and duration of anaesthesia in both the groups.

Results

In all databases, 1141 records were screened, out of which a total of 21 articles were included for the evaluation for full-text analysis. Out of these, 16 articles were excluded and 5 articles were included for the final systematic review. Meta-analysis was performed only for 4 studies.

Conclusion

Amongst the evaluated haemodynamic parameters, there was a significant reduction in the heart rate (baseline to intraoperative period) in clonidine and lignocaine groups than in adrenaline and lignocaine groups during nerve block administration for third molar surgical removal. There was no significant difference between other primary and secondary outcomes evaluated.

Limitations

Blinding was not performed in all the studies, randomisation was performed in only three studies. The volume of local anaesthesia deposited varied in the studies (2 mL in three studies and 2.5 mL in two studies). Most of the studies (n = 4) were evaluated on normal adults and only one study evaluated mild hypertensive patients.

Local anesthesia in oral and maxillofacial surgery: A review of current opinion

Local anesthesia (LA) is the most important pain management process in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Safe and effective LA not only enable patients to obtain high-quality treatment, but also relieve the anxiety of patients when they come to the clinic. The choices of local anesthetic and injection methods determine the success of LA to a great extent. At present, in most countries or regions, common local anesthetics used in oral and maxillofacial surgery belong to amides and they are injected into patients' body mainly through block or infiltration anesthesia. In addition, the operators' technique level, patient's subjective psychology and anatomical variation of maxillofacial structure also have a strong influence on LA in dental clinic. Due to the existence of above factors, the worldwide success rates of LA in oral and maxillofacial surgery is very different. There are no specific LA methods that ensure 100% successful LA rates. Fortunately, the development of new local anesthetic and injection technology are providing us with new ideas to solve this problem. This review mainly report the new research progress on LA in oral and maxillofacial surgery in recent decades and help clinicians with dental LA operation.

Use of Phentolamine Mesylate in Implant Surgery: Analysis of Adverse Effects and Haemodynamic Changes

The clinical application of phentolamine mesylate (PM) as an anaesthetic reversal agent has been documented in the paediatric population and in conservative dentistry, but no studies have been conducted regarding dental implant surgery. A prospective randomised study was conducted on 60 patients eligible for mandibular implant treatment, randomly divided between a control group (CG) and an experimental group (EG), to whom PM was administered. Haemodynamic changes, adverse effects and patient satisfaction were assessed. No statistically significant differences in haemodynamic changes and postoperative pain were found between CG and EG (p < 0.05), except for systolic blood pressure (SBP), which increased slightly in EG, without posing a risk to patients. There were no differences in the occurrence of adverse effects between the two groups, except for greater difficulty in chewing and biting (p < 0.05) in CG and greater pain in the injection area (p = 0.043) in EG. Among EG patients, 83.3% reported that they would request PM again for future dental treatment. The use of PM offers an alternative to implant surgery, thereby increasing patients' quality of life without increasing the risks.

Postoperative Pain Management Using Supplemental Bupivacaine After Mandibular Orthognathic Surgery: A Triple-Blind Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

The objective of this triple-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was to assess the clinical analgesic efficacy of 0.5% bupivacaine in acute postoperative pain management after bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy (BSSO).

METHODS

Patients were randomly allocated into the experimental (0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200000 epinephrine) or control group (normal saline - placebo) using block randomization. The interventions were administered at the inferior alveolar nerve block and buccal nerve block sites bilaterally after the BSSO surgery. Analgesic efficacy was assessed in terms of the patient's pain perception measured by a numerical rating scale (0 to 10), rescue drug requirement, and duration of analgesia for 24 hours after the surgery. The statistical analysis was blinded to the allocation groups, and P-value of <.05 was considered as a significant difference for all tests.

RESULTS

In total, 28 patients underwent BSSO (ie, 14 in each group). There was no significant difference in pain perception of patients injected with 0.5% bupivacaine and those administered with placebo during the 24 hours after the surgery (P > .05). Three patients in the bupivacaine group took the rescue drug after the surgery (mean duration - 268 minutes) and 1 patient in the placebo group took the rescue drug after 27 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative use of bupivacaine did not show a superior analgesic efficacy when compared with normal saline in controlling acute postoperative pain after BSSO.

Comparison of anesthetic efficacy of intraosseous injection with conventional inferior alveolar nerve block in mandibular third molar surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This review focused on comparing the anesthetic efficacy of intraosseous injection and conventional inferior alveolar nerve block in mandibular third molar surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) were accessed to identify randomized controlled trials comparing intraosseous injection with conventional inferior alveolar nerve block in mandibular third molar surgery. The outcome measures included onset of anesthesia, success of anesthetic technique, pain during injection of anesthesia, pain during surgery, and duration of anesthesia.

RESULTS

Four studies met the inclusion criteria and consisted of 242 mandibular third molar surgeries. No significant differences were found between the anesthetic techniques in terms of onset of anesthesia, success of anesthetic technique, pain during injection of anesthesia, and pain during surgery. However, the intraosseous technique revealed a significantly shorter duration of anesthesia than the inferior alveolar nerve block (mean difference, -56.34 minutes; 95% confidence interval, -70.72 to -41.97; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite having anesthetic efficacy similar to that of the conventional inferior alveolar nerve block, intraosseous injection has an added benefit of early recovery of sensation owing to its shorter duration of anesthesia.