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

Pain Reduction of Ibuprofen Sodium Dihydrate Alone and in Combination with Acetaminophen in an Untreated Endodontic Pain Model: A Randomized, Double-blind Investigation

INTRODUCTION

Most pain studies have been based on a postsurgical, third molar model using ibuprofen (IBU)/acetaminophen (APAP). Studies have found quicker onset of pain relief with a newer formulation of IBU - ibuprofen sodium dihydrate (ISD). The purpose of this study was to compare pain reduction of ISD/APAP to ISD in an acute endodontic pain model of untreated patients experiencing moderate to severe pain with symptomatic apical periodontitis.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In this double-blind randomized study, 64 adult emergency patients in acute moderate to severe pain, a pulpal diagnosis of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis or necrosis, and symptomatic apical periodontitis participated. Each patient randomly received either one dose of 768 mg ISD/1000 mg APAP or one dose of 768 mg ISD. Pain intensity scores were recorded every 15 minutes over 240 minutes using the Heft-Parker VAS along with time to first sign of pain relief, time to meaningful pain relief, and time to 50% pain relief also recorded. The data were analyzed statistically.

RESULTS

Both ISD and ISD/APAP groups showed a progressive decrease in pain from baseline to 120 minutes after medication administration. Afterward, a relative plateau was seen in the patients' pain. There was no difference in the VAS scores between the ISD and ISD/APAP at any given time point, time to first sign of pain relief, time to meaningful pain relief, and time to 50% pain relief.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of APAP to ISD for pain control in an untreated endodontic pain model did not differ significantly from ISD alone.

Comprehensive Strategies in Endodontic Pain Management: An Integrative Narrative Review

This narrative review comprehensively examines the current and emerging strategies for pain management in endodontics, encompassing a wide range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Through an extensive exploration of 20 distinct parts, the review discusses traditional analgesics, antibiotics, the use of corticosteroids, and the role of novel treatments such as platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) and cryotherapy. The review also delves into the intricacies of clinical methods, such as trephination and occlusal reduction, and discusses the potential of advanced techniques such as GABAergic signaling, acupuncture, in silico modulation, and low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for the effective management of endodontic pain. The analysis reveals a trend toward integrative methods that combine established practices with cutting-edge research, highlighting the importance of a tailored approach in endodontic pain management. The findings underscore the significance of understanding the complex nature of dental pain and the need for multifaceted treatment strategies. The review emphasizes that while traditional pharmacological methods remain foundational, emerging therapies offer promising adjuncts or alternatives, especially in cases where conventional treatments may be inadequate or unsuitable. This review aims to serve as a comprehensive resource for endodontic practitioners and researchers, offering insights into the multifarious aspects of pain management in endodontics. It underscores the ongoing evolution in the field and suggests directions for future research, particularly in refining and validating new pain management techniques.

COVID-19 Risk Management in Dental Offices: A Review Article

BACKGROUND: As all the dental staff, including nurses and practitioners, are exposed to various routes of contamination due to the novel COVID-19 virus, which is still unknown to the scientific world, developing strategies to reduce the risk of transmission and decontaminate surfaces in a dental office would be of high importance. Although there is still insufficient data on managing this virus in dental offices, several studies have suggested protocols for improving care. AIM: This study aimed to review present investigations and reach a conclusion on what we know and need to know to combat this virus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this review, Scopus, PubMed, and MEDLINE databases were searched using the keywords “COVID-19,” “SARS-CoV-2,” “Medical Disinfectants,” “Personal Protective Equipment’s,” and “Surface Decontamination.” Articles were reviewed, and finally, relevant articles published during 2000–2022 were included in the final paper. RESULTS: The present research concluded that using a combination of the face shield and N95 masks protected the eyes, nose, and mouth. To have more efficient protection, water-resistant long-sleeved gowns and gloves were highly suggested. To overcome aerosols, high-performance air filters and ultraviolet were found quite effective. Allowing the patient to use antiseptic mouthwash before starting the treatment could reduce oral microorganisms and the following airborne contamination. CONCLUSION: This review has gathered all available data regarding dentistry and COVID-19 in order to conclude what has been achieved yet in the prevention of this virus through dental offices; however, more investigations are needed to have a definitive protocol against the virus.

Intranasal Ketorolac for Acute Pain in Adult Emergency Department Patients

Pain is a common complaint in the emergency department. An alternative to opioids is desirable. Oral medications are not feasible with gastrointestinal disorders or NPO. Intravenous medications require skill and time. Intravenous/intramuscular medications are painful with potential needlestick injury. Intranasal medications have rapid onset, easy administration, do not need skilled providers, and no risk of needlestick injury. A total of 28 adults with acute pain (numeric rating scale ≥ 4) received intranasal ketorolac. Numeric rating scale decreased in all: 32% complete pain relief, median (interquartile range) decrease -5 (-6.8 to -4) (p < .001). Pain relief onset was median [interquartile range] 5 (2.3, 15.0) min. Vital signs remained normal. There were no nasal mucosal changes, no complications. Minor side effects, mostly nasal burning, in 43%, resolved within 5 min. Patients and nurses were satisfied with intranasal ketorolac, and would use it again. Intranasal ketorolac had a rapid onset, was effective, safe, well tolerated with minor side effects that resolved quickly.

Intranasal ketorolac versus intravenous ketorolac for treatment of migraine headaches in children: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Intravenous ketorolac is commonly used for treating migraine headaches in children. However, the prerequisite placement of an intravenous line can be technically challenging, time-consuming, and associated with pain and distress. Intranasal ketorolac may be an effective alternative that is needle-free and easier to administer. We aimed to determine whether intranasal ketorolac is non-inferior to intravenous ketorolac for reducing pain in children with migraine headaches.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized double-blind non-inferiority clinical trial. Children aged 8-17 years with migraine headaches, moderate to severe pain, and requiring parenteral analgesics received intranasal ketorolac (1 mg/kg) or intravenous ketorolac (0.5 mg/kg). Primary outcome was reduction in pain at 60 min after administration measured using the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (scored 0-10). Non-inferiority margin was 2/10. Secondary outcomes included time to onset of clinically meaningful decrease in pain; ancillary emergency department outcomes (e.g. receipt of rescue medications, headache relief, headache freedom, percentage improvement); 24-h follow-up outcomes; functional disability; and adverse events.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine children were enrolled. We analyzed 27 children who received intranasal ketorolac and 29 who received intravenous ketorolac. The difference in mean pain reduction at 60 min between groups was 0.2 (95% CI -0.9, 1.3), with the upper limit of the 95% CI being less than the non-inferiority margin. There were no statistical differences between groups for secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Intranasal ketorolac was non-inferior to intravenous ketorolac for reducing migraine headache pain in the emergency department.

To Drill or Not to Drill: Management of Endodontic Emergencies and In-Process Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Introduction

Dental professionals are at high risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection because of their scope of practice with aerosol-generating procedures. Recommendation by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to suspend elective dental procedures and avoid aerosol-generating procedures posed significant challenges in the management of patients presenting with endodontic emergencies and uncertainty of outcomes for endodontic procedures initiated, but not completed, before shutdown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the success of palliative care on endodontic emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic and to evaluate the stability of teeth with long-term Ca(OH)₂ placement because of delays in treatment completion.

Methods

Patients presenting for endodontic emergencies during COVID-19 Shelter-in-Place orders received palliative care, including pharmacologic therapy and/or non–aerosol-generating procedural interventions. Part I of the study evaluated the effectiveness of palliative care, and need for aerosol-generating procedures or extractions was quantified. Part II of the study evaluated survivability and rate of adverse events for teeth that received partial or full root canal debridement and placement of calcium hydroxide before shutdown.

Results

Part I: Twenty-one patients presented with endodontic emergencies in 25 teeth during statewide shutdown. At a follow-up rate of 96%, 83% of endodontic emergencies required no further treatment or intervention after palliative care. Part II: Thirty-one teeth had received partial or full root canal debridement before statewide shutdown. Mean time to complete treatment was 13 weeks. At a recall rate of 100%, 77% of teeth did not experience any adverse events due to delays in treatment completion. The most common adverse event was a fractured provisional restoration (13%), followed by painful and/or infectious flare-up (6.4%), which were managed appropriately and therefore seemed successful. Only 1 tooth was fractured and nonrestorable (3%), leading to a failed outcome of tooth extraction. The remaining 4 outcome failures (13%) were due to patient unwillingness to undergo school-mandated COVID testing or patient unwillingness to continue treatment because of perceived risk of COVID infection.

Conclusions

Palliative care for management of endodontic emergencies is a successful option when aerosol-generating procedures are restricted. This treatment approach may be considered in an effort to reduce risk of transmission of COVID-19 infection during subsequent shutdowns. Prolonged Ca(OH)₂ medicament because of COVID-19 related delays in treatment completion appeared to have minimal effect on survival of teeth.

Biosafety for Dental Patients During Dentistry Care After COVID-19: A Review of the Literature

The world is currently changing due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and the field of dentistry is no stranger to this. The care of patients in the dental office involves very strict biosafety protocols, and patients must be aware of the protection barriers implemented to allow satisfactory, safe dental care. The purpose of this study was to synthesize and analyze the management of the current biosafety standards for dental patients since the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic. A bibliographic search of the main sources of information including MEDLINE (by means of PubMed), Scopus, Science Direct, SCIELO, and Google Scholar was carried out. Articles published without language restriction, systematic reviews, literature reviews, and observational studies were included. We identified the biosafety measures that must be taken before, during, and after dental practice following the arrival of COVID-19. The main measures include telephone triage, temperature taking on arrival at the office, the organization of the waiting room, washing hands before entering the office, knowing the auxiliary radiographic exams of choice and what type of treatment can be performed, albeit with restrictions. In conclusion, dental patients must comply with all the biosafety measures established by international protection standards and implemented by dentists before, during, and after dental practice to reduce the possibility of COVID-19 infection.

Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19): Implications for Clinical Dental Care

The recent spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its associated coronavirus disease has gripped the entire international community and caused widespread public health concerns. Despite global efforts to contain the disease spread, the outbreak is still on a rise because of the community spread pattern of this infection. This is a zoonotic infection, similar to other coronavirus infections, that is believed to have originated in bats and pangolins and later transmitted to humans. Once in the human body, this coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is abundantly present in nasopharyngeal and salivary secretions of affected patients, and its spread is predominantly thought to be respiratory droplet/contact in nature. Dental professionals, including endodontists, may encounter patients with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and will have to act diligently not only to provide care but at the same time prevent nosocomial spread of infection. Thus, the aim of this article is to provide a brief overview of the epidemiology, symptoms, and routes of transmission of this novel infection. In addition, specific recommendations for dental practice are suggested for patient screening, infection control strategies, and patient management protocol.