Intrapocket topical anesthetic versus injected anesthetic for pain control during scaling and root planing in adult patients

Impact of Virtual Reality on Perception of Dental Pain Associated With Dental Scaling in Healthy Adults: A Split Mouth Design Randomised Controlled Study

AIM OF THE STUDY

The aim of the study is to investigate the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) in mitigating pain associated with dental scaling procedures. Furthermore, the study aims to evaluate individuals' tolerance levels to VR during dental scaling sessions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomised split-mouth design study was conducted on 29 systemically healthy adult patients aged 18 years and above. Dental scaling was performed in two quadrants while wearing VR glasses, with the remaining quadrants undergoing the procedure without VR. The sequence of procedures was determined by random allocation. Patients were provided with VR glasses loaded with a mobile phone. After the procedure, patients were asked to complete a VR questionnaire. The primary outcome variables included pain scores with and without VR, while secondary variables included VR experience scores, baseline heart rate (HR), difference in HR, systolic blood pressure (BP), diastolic BP, difference in systolic BP, and difference in diastolic BP.

RESULTS

All 29 subjects successfully completed the study. Paired analysis of outcome variables with and without VR glasses revealed a statistically significant difference in pain scores (two-tailed p < 0.001). Additionally, a strong positive correlation was observed between VR experience score and difference in pain score (γ = 0.78, p < 0.001). While positive correlations between modified dental anxiety scale (MDAS) score and pain scores were observed, they were not highly significant (without VR: γ = 0.31 p = 0.097, with VR: γ = 0.34 p = 0.072).

CONCLUSIONS

The VR environment significantly diminished pain perception during dental scaling. Participants who experienced the VR setting more positively reported an even greater decline in pain scores, highlighting the profound impact of immersive technology on patient comfort.

Pain management in periodontal therapy using local anesthetics and other drugs: an integrative review

Background

Surgical and non-surgical periodontal procedures often lead to postoperative pain. Clinicians use pharmacological methods such as anesthetics, anti-inflammatory drugs, and analgesics for relief. However, the multitude of options makes it challenging to select the best approach for routine dental care.

Objective

This review aimed to describe previous studies regarding the pharmacological management used for pain control during periodontal procedures as well as factors that may interfere with patients' perception of pain.

Methods

We included studies (period of 2000-2023, whose approach corresponded to the pharmacological protocols used for preoperative, trans-operative, and postoperative pain control in adult patients undergoing surgical and non-surgical periodontal therapy.

Results

A total of 32 studies were included in the analysis, of which 17 (53%) were related to anesthetic methods and 15 (47%) were related to therapeutic protocols (anti-inflammatory/analgesic agents). These studies predominantly involved nonsurgical periodontal procedures. Studies have reported that factors related to age, type of procedure, and anxiety can influence pain perception; however, only seven of these studies evaluated anxiety.

Conclusions

Numerous methods for pain control can be applied in periodontal therapy, which are accomplished through anesthetic methods and/or therapeutic protocols. Factors such as anxiety, age, and type of procedure are related to pain perception in patients. Thus, it is the responsibility of dentists to evaluate each clinical situation and define the best protocol to follow based on the literature.

Periodontal maintenance: individual patient responses and discontinuations

Aim

There is a lack of data on long-term impact of different psychological variables on periodontitis. Aim of the current study was to investigate the impact of psychological factors in patients with chronic periodontitis (CP; according to the 1999 Classification of Periodontal Diseases) to explain adherence to or discontinuation of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) in a university setting.

Methods

A sample of n = 119 patients were examined in a questionnaire-based, cross-sectional survey. All patients had received active periodontal treatment (APT) and were reevaluated in a university setting (Kiel) before 2016 [T1: start SPT]. Patients who showed sufficient adherence to SPT of ≥ 2 years (maximum ± 6 months of deviation between SPT intervals, last visit and questionnaire at T2) were assigned to the adherence group (AG: n = 58), or, if they interrupted SPT or stopped treatment altogether, to the non-adherence group (NAG: n = 61). In addition to dental parameters, we assessed socio-demographic, treatment-related (critical attitudes/complaints), dental as well as psychological variables (especially psychological attachment, but also dental fear, patient participation style, personality functioning) and examined between-group differences as well as possible mediating factors of non-adherence to treatment continuation.

Results

For both groups we found similar average observation time (NAG/AG: 15.9(8.9)/14.9(10.6)years). There were significant differences in age, critical attitudes, dental fear, and patient participation style between the groups. With the help of exploratory sequential mediation models, we found a significant indirect pathway of the impact of attachment anxiety on discontinuation of treatment mediated through dental fear and number of critical attitudes/complaints.

Conclusion

Considering the limitations, dentists should be aware of personality-related risk-factors such as attachment anxiety as well as their interplay with levels of dental fear and critical attitudes which may influence adherence to SPT.

Trial registration: The clinical trial was retrospectively registered in the DRKS—German Clinical Trials Register (https://www.drks.de) with registration DRKS00030092 (26/08/2022).

Patient Discomfort in Relation to Thyroid Nodule Fine-Needle Aspiration (FNA) Performed with or without Parenteral and/or Topical Anesthetic

OBJECTIVE

There is much reported variation in the impact of local anesthesia on thyroid fine-needle aspiration (FNA) related discomfort. We compare patients undergoing thyroid FNA with subcutaneous injection or topical anesthetic to no anesthetic.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 585 sequential ultrasound guided thyroid FNA procedures in Mayo Clinic. Group 1 (n = 200), no anesthetic; Group 2 (n = 185), subcutaneous injection anesthetic; and Group 3 (n = 200), topical anesthetic. Patient demographics, number of FNA passes, needle gauge, and cytopathology were recorded plus a discomfort score (0 to 10) before and immediately post procedure in all 3 groups and peak discomfort during the FNA in Groups 1 and 2.

RESULTS

There were no differences among the 3 groups in age, sex, FNA sufficiency rate, cytopathology, and FNA passes number. There was no significant difference between Groups 1 and 2 in peak discomfort score during the FNA: 0 (45%, 42.2%), 1 to 2 (19%, 24.9%), 3 to 5 (23.5%, 20.5%), 6 to 8 (9.5%, 10.8%), 9 to 10 (3%, 1.6%), respectively. Discomfort score post procedure: 0 (78.5%, 77.8%, 53.5%), 1 to 2 (13%, 13%, 36.5%), 3 to 5 (7%, 7%, 9%), 6 to 8 (1.5%, 2.2%, 1%), 9 to 10 (0%, 0%, 0%) for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. There were no significant differences among the 3 groups for a discomfort score ≥3.

CONCLUSION

FNA associated patient discomfort was comparable during and after the procedure regardless of the use of anesthetic or the type utilized. Approximately 90% of patients experienced mild to moderate discomfort during the procedure. And 90% reported no more than a level 2 discomfort post procedure.

ABBREVIATIONS

End = endocrinology; FNA = fine-needle aspiration; MCF = Mayo Clinic Florida; MCR = Mayo Clinic Rochester.

Topical anesthesia for stainless steel crown tooth preparation in primary molars: a pilot study

Background

Placement of full-coverage restorations such as stainless steel crowns (SSCs) for pulpectomy treated primary molars is essential for successful outcomes. The tooth preparation process for SSCs can cause discomfort to gingival tissues since the crown should be seated 1 mm subgingivally. The purpose of this prospective trial was to compare the effectiveness of subgingival and transmucosal application of topical anesthetics on dental pain during SSC tooth preparation among 6- to 8-year-old children.

Methods

A consecutive sample of 27 children, aged 6-8 years, who required an SSC after pulp therapy in primary molars were randomly divided into three groups. Group A received infiltration anesthesia before tooth preparation for SSC placement, whereas in Group B and C, only topical anesthesia was applied subgingivally and transmucosally. Wong-Bakers Faces pain rating scale (WBFPS) scores were recorded after tooth preparation. Faces, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability (FLACC) scores were evaluated by two blinded and calibrated investigators through video recordings of the patient during tooth preparation. Data were tabulated, and inter-group comparisons were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis and analysis of variance tests.

Results

Out of the 27 participants, 48% were boys and 52% were girls, with an overall mean age of 6.83 years. Group A showed the least pain scores according to both the scales, followed by Group B and Group C. The pain intensity was statistically significant on both the pain scales with P = 0.003 for FLACC and P < 0.001 for WBFPS.

Conclusion

Subgingival application of topical anesthesia reduced pain to a certain extent but not as effectively as infiltration anesthesia during SSC tooth preparation in primary molars. Transmucosal application of topical anesthesia did not reduce discomfort when compared to the other two interventions.

Efficacy of a Light-cured Tetracaine-based Anesthetic Gel for Rubber Dam Clamp Placement: A Triple-blind Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of a new light-cured anesthetic gel for pain control in adults undergoing rubber dam isolation for the restorative treatment of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This study was a randomized, split-mouth, triple-blind, controlled trial. The sample comprised 50 adults with at least one pair of NCCLs located in the same arch but on opposite sides. Simple randomization defined the tooth to receive the light-cured tetracaine-based anesthetic gel or the placebo gel. After cotton roll isolation, the gels were applied in the gingival tissue around the tooth with the aid of the applicator tip of a syringe, left in place for 15 seconds, and light-cured for 15 seconds. Then, a #212 clamp was positioned on the tooth. If the patient reported pain, the clamp was removed, the patient filled out a pain intensity form (a 0-10 visual analog scale [VAS] and a 0-4 verbal rating scale [VRS]) and an injectable anesthetic was applied before rubber dam isolation for the restorative procedure. The absolute risk, intensity of pain, and need for rescue anesthesia were analyzed by the McNemar test and the Wilcoxon signed rank test (α=5%).

RESULTS

The odds ratio [OR] for pain (OR=3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.1 to 14.6; p=0.03) showed lower reports of pain for the light-cured anesthetic gel. One in five patients will benefit from placement of the light-cured anesthetic gel. On average, pain intensity was one VAS unit lower in those using the light-cured anesthetic gel than in those using the placebo gel. For the VRS, the pain intensity for the light-cured anesthetic gel was 0.4 units lower than the pain intensity for the placebo gel (95% CI=-0.9 to 0.07). The OR for rescue anesthesia was 2.5 (95% CI=0.7 to 10.9; p=0.18).

CONCLUSIONS

The light-cured, tetracaine-based anesthetic gel reduced the absolute risk of pain by 20% in NCCLs.

Systematic review versus structured critical analysis

Objective: This analysis discusses common problems with systematic reviews (SRs) and presents a novel solution, the structured critical analysis (SCA) that can be incorporated into a SR or used as an alternative literature review design.Methods: A cross-sectional survey of current SRs related to interdisciplinary restorative dentistry was obtained by evaluating 100 current SRs for their self-reported methodological quality and its effect on scientific validity.Results: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses protocol (PRISMA) was used in 99/100 SRs, but only 8/100 reported a low risk of bias. High statistical heterogeneity precluding meta-analysis was found in 44/100 SRs. Only 94 paragraphs/100 SRs provided critical analysis.Discussion: Significant problems were found with current SRs that can compromise their reliability as the premier level of evidence for clinical science research. The reader must be aware of these deficiencies to correctly interpret the SR and cannot rely on the format alone.

[Modern concept of pain syndrome and dental anxiety pathophysiology and prevention]

The work presents a wide range of etiological factors and pathogenesis of formation and development of the pain symptom. The conceptual model of pain which consists of the uniform process including four main complementary levels is presented: nociception, algesis, suffering and painful behavior.

Topical intra-pocket anaesthetic gel reduces the risk and intensity of pain during periodontal scaling and root planing and probing

Data sourcesMedline, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, Cochrane Library, SIGLE, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Periódicos Capes Theses, Current Controlled Trials, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the ClinicalTrials.gov, Rebec (www.rebec.gov.br), EU Clinical Trials Register (www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu), abstracts of the annual conference of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR) and its regional divisions. Reference lists of primary studies and related articles from PubMed.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials, parallel, crossover or split-mouth designs comparing intra-pocket anaesthesia with an anaesthetic gel with placebo in patients requiring periodontal probing or SRP were considered.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors shortlisted 11 final articles based on the inclusion criteria. Data extraction was performed by three authors using customised forms after calibration. The risk of bias in the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised controlled trials.¹ResultsThe authors used VAS and Heft-Parker scale to measure pain intensity and reported Hedge's g standardised difference in the means. The mean reduction in VAS and Heft-Parker scale were - 0.576 (CI = - 0.94 to - 0.22; p = 0.002) and - 1.814 (CI = - 3.38 to - 0.245; p = 0.023) respectively. This indicates a positive effect of anaesthetic gel in pain intensity reduction. For risk of pain, the authors reported the odds ratio of 0.025 (CI 0.003-0.25; p = 0.002). As far as the need for rescue anaesthesia using the same anaesthetic gel and/or injected anaesthetics, the odds ratio was 0.358 (95% CI 0.174-0.736; p = 0.005). Both these findings show the efficacy of anaesthetic gel in controlling the risk of pain during SRP and probing.ConclusionsThe risk and intensity of pain during probing and SRP as well as the need for additional rescue anaesthesia using the same anaesthetic gel and/or injected anaesthetics is reduced with the application of topical intra-pocket anaesthetic gel.