Pain Reduction in Untreated Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis Using Liposomal Bupivacaine (Exparel): A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Trial

Effect of Back-Pressure Anesthesia on Postoperative Pain after the Endodontic Treatment in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

The present study evaluated the effect of 2 different back pressure-based supplemental anesthesia on postoperative pain in patients receiving endodontic treatment for a mandibular molar with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

METHODS

One-hundred-thirty-five adult patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpits in a mandibular first or second molar, received an initial inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) injection with 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine. Ten minutes following the injection, access to cavity preparation began. Lip numbness was a must for all patients. The Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (HP-VAS) was used to measure pain during endodontic therapy. Success of primary injections was defined as no or mild pain (less than 55 mm on HP-VAS) during access preparation. The patients with initial successful anesthesia served as control and received endodontic treatment. Ninety-five patients with unsuccessful primary anesthesia randomly received either intraligamentary injections of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine or intrapulpal injections with similar anesthetic solution. Endodontic treatment was re-initiated and canals were instrumented till working length under copious irrigation. Intracanal medicament of calcium hydroxide was placed and teeth received a temporary restoration. Postoperative pain was measured at 2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours, 24 hours, and 3 days. Data were analyzed using the Pearson chi-square test, one-way analysis of variance, and one-way repeated measures analysis of variance.

RESULTS

The initial initial inferior alveolar nerve block was successful in 40 cases (out of 135). The intraligamentary injections were successful in 33 out of 47 cases (70%), and intrapulpal injections were successful in all cases (45/45). The patients receiving intraligamentary injections reported significantly higher pain scores at all intervals till 24 hours. After 3 days, the pain significantly reduced in all the groups with no significant difference between them.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving supplementary intraligamentary injections can experience increased postoperative pain till 24 hours after the endodontic treatment. The pain scores reduced to the level of the control group after 3 days.

Provider-directed analgesia for dental pain

INTRODUCTION

Extraction of impacted molar teeth is a common procedure performed by oral surgeons and general dentists, with postoperative pain being a significant adverse event post-surgery. If mismanaged, pain can lead to complications that impact oral and systemic health. The current scourge of the opioid epidemic has ushered in a new era of provider-directed analgesic (PDA) therapy in dentistry.

AREAS COVERED

This article provides an in-depth review on the major pharmacological and therapeutic properties of established and alternative analgesics used to manage dental pain.

EXPERT OPINION

Substantial evidence-based literature shows combination of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID; e.g. ibuprofen) and acetaminophen provides superior pain relief than single-agent or combination opioid regimens. However, there are clinical scenarios (e.g. severe pain) when short-course opioid prescription is appropriate in select patients, in which a 2-3-day treatment duration is typically sufficient. Alternative agents (e.g. caffeine, gabapentin, phytotherapies), typically in combination with established agents, can mitigate postoperative dental pain. Some evidence suggests preemptive therapies (e.g. corticosteroids, NSAIDs) reduce amounts of postsurgical analgesic consumption and might lessen opioid prescription burden. In summary, this comprehensive review provides an opportune update on the evolving landscape of pharmacotherapy for acute postsurgical dental pain, informing best practices for PDA in the dental setting.

May carriers at nanoscale improve the Endodontic's future?

Nanocarriers (NCs) are dynamic nanovehicles used to transport bioactive derivatives like therapeutical formulations, drugs and/or dyes. The current review assists in understanding the mechanism of action of several recent developed NCs with antimicrobial purposes. Here, nine NCs varieties are portrayed with focus on nineteen approaches that are fulfil described based on outcomes obtained from in vitro antimicrobial assays. All approaches have previously been verified and we underline the biochemical challenges of all NCs, expecting that the present data may encourage the application of NCs in endodontic antimicrobial basic research. Methodological limitations and the evident base gaps made not possible to draw a definite conclusion about the best NCs for achieving efficient antimicrobial outcomes in endodontic studies. Due to the lack of pre-clinical trials and the scarce number of clinical trials in this emergent area, there is still much room for improvement on several fronts.

Liposomal Bupivacaine in Dentistry and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. A Review of Human and Veterinary Literature

This article reviews the human and veterinary literature regarding liposome encapsulated bupivacaine use in dentistry and oral and maxillofacial surgery. The purpose of this review is to present available information on this local anesthetic in a manner that will allow veterinary dentists and oral and maxillofacial surgeons to use evidence-based information when considering incorporating liposomal bupivacaine into their practice. The twelve human clinical studies and three veterinary reports that met the literature search criteria do not support the use of liposomal bupivacaine in veterinary dentistry and oral and maxillofacial surgery.

Outcomes to evaluate care for adults with acute dental pain and infection: a systematic narrative review

OBJECTIVE

To identify outcomes reported in peer-reviewed literature for evaluating the care of adults with acute dental pain or infection.DesignSystematic narrative review.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Primary research studies published in peer-reviewed literature and reporting care for adults with acute dental pain or infection across healthcare settings. Reports not in English language were excluded.

STUDY SELECTION

Seven databases (CINAHL Plus, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched from inception to December 2020. Risk of bias assessment used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for randomised controlled trials and Quality Assessment Tool for Studies of Diverse Design for other study types.

OUTCOMES

Narrative synthesis included all outcomes of care for adults with acute dental pain or infection. Excluded were outcomes about pain management to facilitate treatment, prophylaxis of postsurgical pain/infection or traumatic injuries.

RESULTS

Searches identified 19 438 records, and 27 studies (dating from 1993 to 2020) were selected for inclusion. Across dental, pharmacy, hospital emergency and rural clinic settings, the studies were undertaken in high-income (n=20) and low/middle-income (n=7) countries. Two clinical outcome categories were identified: signs and symptoms of pain/infection and complications following treatment (including adverse drug reactions and reattendance for the same problem). Patient-reported outcomes included satisfaction with the care. Data collection methods included patient diaries, interviews and in-person reviews.

DISCUSSION

A heterogeneous range of study types and qualities were included: one study, published in 1947, was excluded only due to lacking outcome details. Studies from dentistry reported just clinical outcomes; across wider healthcare more outcomes were included.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of clinical and patient-reported outcomes are recommended to evaluate care for adults with acute dental pain or infection. Further research is recommended to develop core outcomes aligned with the international consensus on oral health outcomes.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020210183.

Nanoparticles in Dentistry: A Comprehensive Review

In recent years, nanoparticles (NPs) have been receiving more attention in dentistry. Their advantageous physicochemical and biological properties can improve the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of numerous oral diseases, including dental caries, periodontal diseases, pulp and periapical lesions, oral candidiasis, denture stomatitis, hyposalivation, and head, neck, and oral cancer. NPs can also enhance the mechanical and microbiological properties of dental prostheses and implants and can be used to improve drug delivery through the oral mucosa. This paper reviewed studies from 2015 to 2020 and summarized the potential applications of different types of NPs in the many fields of dentistry.

Overcoming barriers by local drug delivery with liposomes

Localized or topical administration of drugs may be considered as a potential approach for overcoming the problems caused by the various biological barriers encountered in drug delivery. The combination of using localized administration routes and delivering drugs in nanoparticulate formulations, such as liposomes, may have additional advantages. Such advantages include prolonged retention of high drug loads at the site of action and controlled release of the drug, ensuring prolonged therapeutic effect; decreased potential for side-effects and toxicity (due to the high topical concentrations of drugs); and increased protection of drugs from possible harsh environments at the site of action. The use of targeted liposomal formulations may further potentiate any acquired therapeutic advantages. In this review we present the most advanced cases of localized delivery of liposomal formulations of drugs, which have been investigated pre-clinically and clinically in the last ten years, together with the reported therapeutic advantages, in each case.

The Efficacy of Liposomal Bupivacaine for Opioid and Pain Reduction: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background The opioid crisis has prompted surgeons to search for alternative postoperative methods of analgesia. Liposomal bupivacaine is a long-acting local anesthetic formulation used for pain, potentially reducing opioid use. Evaluation of liposomal bupivacaine as a viable alternative for pain management is needed. The objective was to assess the efficacy of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of liposomal bupivacaine in postoperative pain management and opioid consumption. Material and Methods The authors extracted RCTs comparing liposomal bupivacaine versus placebo or active comparators for postoperative pain or opioid reduction from PubMED/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Exclusion criteria included nonhuman studies, non-RCTs, pooled studies, and inability to access full text. The following variables were abstracted: surgical specialty, number of subjects, pain and opioid outcomes, and authors' financial conflicts of interest. Results We identified 77 published RCTs, of which 63 studies with a total of 6770 subjects met inclusion criteria. Liposomal bupivacaine did not demonstrate significant pain relief compared to placebo or active agents in 74.58% of RCTs. Of the studies evaluating narcotic use, liposomal bupivacaine did not show a reduction in opioid consumption in 85.71% of RCTs. Liposomal bupivacaine, when compared to standard bupivacaine or another active agent, yielded no reduction in opioid use in 83.33% and 100.00% of studies, respectively. Clinical trials with a financial conflict of interest relating to the manufacturer of liposomal bupivacaine were significantly more likely to show pain relief (OR: 14.31 [95% CI, 2.8, 73.10], P = 0.0001) and decreased opioid consumption (OR: 12.35 [95% CI 1.40, 109.07], P = 0.0237). Of the 265 unpublished RCTs on ClinicalTrials.gov, 47.54% were withdrawn, terminated, suspended, or completed without study results available. Conclusions The efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine for providing superior postoperative pain control relative to placebo or another active agent is not supported by a majority of RCTs. Underreporting of trial results and bias due to underlying financial relationships amongst authors are two major concerns that should be considered when evaluating the available evidence.

The analgesic efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine compared with bupivacaine hydrochloride for the prevention of postoperative pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE

Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) is a prolonged release formulation of conventional bupivacaine designed for prolonging local or peripheral regional single injection anesthesia. To this day, the benefit of the new substance on relevant end points is discussed controversial.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to determine whether there is a difference in postoperative pain scores and morphine consumption between patients treated with LB and bupivacaine hydrochloride in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) were identified in Embase, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Web of Science up to May 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane methodology. Primary end points were the mean pain score difference and the relative morphine equivalent (MEQ) consumption expressed as the ratio of means (ROM) 24 and 72 hours postoperatively.

FINDINGS

23 RCTs including 1867 patients were eligible for meta-analysis. The mean pain score difference at 24 hours postoperatively was significantly lower in the LB group, at -0.37 (95% CI -0.56 to -0.19). The relative MEQ consumption after 24 hours was also significantly lower in the LB group, at 0.85 (0.82 to 0.89). At 72 hours, the pain score difference was not significant at -0.25 (-0.71 to 0.20) and the MEQ ratio was 0.85 (0.77 to 0.95).

CONCLUSION

The beneficial effect on pain scores and opioid consumption was small but not clinically relevant, despite statistical significance. The effect was stable among all studies, indicating that it is independent of the application modality.

Perineural Liposomal Bupivacaine Is Not Superior to Nonliposomal Bupivacaine for Peripheral Nerve Block Analgesia

BACKGROUND

Liposomal bupivacaine is purported to extend analgesia of peripheral nerve blocks when administered perineurally. However, evidence of the clinical effectiveness of perineural liposomal bupivacaine is mixed. This meta-analysis seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of perineural liposomal bupivacaine in improving peripheral nerve block analgesia as compared with nonliposomal local anesthetics.

METHODS

The authors identified randomized trials evaluating the effectiveness of peripheral nerve block analgesic that compared liposomal bupivacaine with nonliposomal local anesthetics. The primary outcome was the difference in area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of the pooled 24- to 72-h rest pain severity scores. Secondary outcomes included postoperative analgesic consumption, time to first analgesic request, incidence of opioid-related side effects, patient satisfaction, length of hospital stay, liposomal bupivacaine side effects, and functional recovery. AUC pain scores were interpreted in light of a minimal clinically important difference of 2.0 cm · h.

RESULTS

Nine trials (619 patients) were analyzed. When all trials were pooled, AUC pain scores ± SD at 24 to 72 h were 7.6 ± 4.9 cm · h and 6.6 ± 4.6 cm · h for nonliposomal and liposomal bupivacaine, respectively. As such, perineural liposomal bupivacaine provided a clinically unimportant benefit by improving the AUC (95% CI) of 24- to 72-h pain scores by 1.0 cm · h (0.5 to 1.6; P = 0.003) compared with nonliposomal bupivacaine. Excluding an industry-sponsored trial rendered the difference between the groups nonsignificant (0.7 cm · h [-0.1 to 1.5]; P = 0.100). Secondary outcome analysis did not uncover any additional benefits to liposomal bupivacaine in pain severity at individual timepoints up to 72 h, analgesic consumption, time to first analgesic request, opioid-related side effects, patient satisfaction, length of hospital stay, and functional recovery. No liposomal bupivacaine side effects were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Perineural liposomal bupivacaine provided a statistically significant but clinically unimportant improvement in the AUC of postoperative pain scores compared with plain local anesthetic. Furthermore, this benefit was rendered nonsignificant after excluding an industry-sponsored trial, and liposomal bupivacaine was found to be not different from plain local anesthetics for postoperative pain and all other analgesic and functional outcomes. High-quality evidence does not support the use of perineural liposomal bupivacaine over nonliposomal bupivacaine for peripheral nerve blocks.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Ibuprofen and Acetaminophen Versus Intranasal Ketorolac (Sprix) in an Untreated Endodontic Pain Model: A Randomized, Double-blind Investigation

INTRODUCTION

Previously, ketorolac was available for primary use only via intravenous and intramuscular routes. Its availability in intranasal form offers an alternative route of administration that patients can self-administer. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of intranasal ketorolac (Sprix; Egalet US Inc, Wayne, PA) with a combination of ibuprofen/acetaminophen in an acute pain model of untreated endodontic patients experiencing moderate to severe pain and symptomatic apical periodontitis.

METHODS

Seventy patients experiencing moderate to severe pain, a pulpal diagnosis of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis or necrosis, and a periapical diagnosis of symptomatic apical periodontitis participated. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups and received either 31.5 mg intranasal ketorolac and placebo capsules or 1000 mg acetaminophen/600 mg ibuprofen capsules and a mock nasal spray. Patients recorded perceived pain scores on a visual analog scale every 15 minutes from drug administration up to 240 minutes. The time to 50% pain relief, the first sign of pain relief, and meaningful pain relief were recorded, and the data were analyzed.

RESULTS

A decline in reported pain was observed until 120 minutes after dosing, after which reported pain remained relatively constant. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups for the time to 50% pain relief, the first sign of pain relief, or meaningful pain relief.

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of intranasal ketorolac was not significantly different from that of a 1000 mg acetaminophen/600 mg ibuprofen combination. Intranasal ketorolac provides a nonnarcotic alternative and an additional route of medication administration to practicing clinicians.

Effect of Premedication on the Success of Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Patients with Irreversible Pulpitis: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background

Failure in the provision of inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia (IANB) is a significant problem during endodontic treatment of irreversible pulpitis. Various methodologies have been advocated one of which is administration of premedication prior to anesthesia. Despite the considerable number of reports, the topic yet deserves more clarification. This systematic review was conducted to provide an oversight on the effectiveness of premedication prior to IANB in mandibular teeth.

Methods

A PubMed and Cochrane Database search was conducted by using MeSH terms inferior alveolar nerve block + pulpitis and mandibular anesthesia+pulpitis. Two reviewers independently performed the screening, selection of papers, and data extraction. Papers in English language that included randomized clinical studies on the impact of different medications on the success of inferior alveolar block anesthesia in irreversible pulpitis were included. Additionally, relevant supporting literature was also used where necessary.

Results

Initially, 118 papers were selected from PubMed and 68 were selected from Cochrane. Five additional articles were retrieved from Google Search. Following the elimination of duplicates and irrelevant articles, 35 studies were selected meeting the criteria. It was observed that there was moderate evidence to suggest that some premedications were partially effective for the enhancement of mandibular anesthetic effect in irreversible pulpitis.

Conclusion

Though some medications appear to be promising, further supporting research will help highlight this significant topic which requires further clarification.

Liposome Bupivacaine Compared to Plain Local Anesthetics to Reduce Postsurgical Pain: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

Peripheral nerve blocks for postoperative analgesia have improved block success, but analgesia efficacy has been limited by the short duration of traditional local anesthetics. The results of randomized trials comparing liposome bupivacaine with conventional local anesthetic formulations (e.g., plain bupivacaine and ropivacaine) have generated conflicting results. This study was conducted to systematically review the effectiveness of analgesic efficacy of liposome bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site versus plain local anesthetic bupivacaine or ropivacaine in patients undergoing surgery.

Methods

PRISMA statement guidelines were followed. A search of electronic databases National Library of Medicine's PubMed database, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, and Google Scholar from January 2012 to September 2017 was performed. Among the 1,612 records identified, 9 randomized controlled trials involving 779 patients were eligible for data extraction and meta-analysis.

Results

Liposome bupivacaine did not reduce postsurgical pain at rest compared to plain local anesthetics at 24 and 48 hours after surgery. Moreover, liposome bupivacaine did not reduce postoperative opioid consumption at 24, 48, or 72 hours when compared to plain local anesthetics. Liposome bupivacaine did reduce postoperative nausea when compared to plain local anesthetics (P =<0.3). There was no significant difference in hospital length of stay between study groups, the use of plain bupivacaine or ropivacaine, or among orthopedic or nonorthopedic procedures. No manifestations of local anesthetic toxicity were reported.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that liposome bupivacaine does not have an analgesic advantage when compared to plain local anesthetics at the surgical site for patients undergoing surgical procedures.