Utilization of ketorolac tromethamine for control of severe odontogenic pain

Effect of Corticosteroids on Pain Relief Following Root Canal Treatment: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Post-operative pain and flare-up may occur in up to 58% of patients following root canal treatment. The aim was to conduct a systematic review and a possible meta-analysis to determine the effect of glucocorticosteroid (GCS) on pain following root canal treatment.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Scopus, MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases were searched up to 30th January 2017 with broad key words. In addition, the reference lists in eligible papers and text books were hand-searched. Assessment of the eligibility of papers and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Of 9891 articles, 18 were recruited as eligible papers. Most of these papers showed pain reducing effect of GCS on post-endodontic pain. Because of wide heterogeneity among the recruited papers, it was not possible to perform meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of this systematic review, there is a vast heterogeneity amongst articles regarding the use of GCS and their effect on post-operative pain after endodontic treatment. Further investigations with similar methods and materials are needed before meta-analysis on the effect of GCS on post-operative pain following root canal treatment can be performed.

Supplemental pulpal anesthesia for mandibular teeth

Clinical pulpal anesthesia is dependent on the interaction of three major factors. (1) the dentist (2) the patient and (3) local anesthesia. Many patients fear endodontic treatment due to a concern about pain. Although pain treatment is well managed in many endodontic patients, there exists a group of patients who do not receive adequate local anesthesia. The purpose of this review article is to discuss the possible reasons for pulpal anesthetic failures and also to focus on the measures for developing effective approaches for the same.

Pain measurement: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) in clinical trials with OTC analgesics in headache

AIM

The aim was to assess the performance of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in patients recruited in a clinical trial with over the counter analgesics in headache.

METHODS

The Thomapyrin Study showed the significant superiority of the fixed combination of acetylsalicylic acid + paracetamol + caffeine over the combination without caffeine, the single preparations, and placebo in the treatment of headache. Patients enrolled into the study were trained in the handling of the VAS by naming categories of a 6-point Verbal Rating Scale (VRS). These data were used to evaluate the level of order consistency between the VAS and VRS, to deduce cut-off points for rescaling the continuous VAS into a discrete ordinal scale using the receiver operating characteristic methodology, and to assess the test-retest performance.

RESULTS

Approximately 75% of the patients recorded the pain intensity on the VAS in the same order as given on the VRS. However, in 12.6% of patients, the German terms 'leicht' (mild) and 'mäßig' (moderate) were mixed up regarding their order on the VAS. Substantial overlapping of the frequency distributions of the VAS assessment were found for the VRS categories mild and moderate pain as well as severe and very severe pain. Grouping of the VAS assessments into a discrete ordinal scale necessitated a non-equidistant rescaling based on the categories of the VRS. By means of analysis of the receiver operating characteristic curves, the following cut-off points were determined on a 100 mm VAS: no pain 0-2 mm, mild pain 2-17 mm, moderate pain 17-47 mm, severe pain 47-77 mm, very severe pain 77-96 mm, most severe pain imaginable 96-100 mm. Repeated assessment up to several months after the first assessment demonstrated a test-retest agreement on the VAS in 61.0-91.4% of the patients, depending on the VRS category.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the VRS categories cannot be presented in an equidistant manner on the VAS, and that contrary to previous assumptions, the pain intensity descriptors are less clear and can have different meanings in different languages. Therefore, both in the 3rd edition of the International Headache Classification (ICHD-III) and in the guidelines for clinical trials of patients with headache illnesses, rather than a 4-grade VRS, a 6-grade or higher level VRS or a VAS should be recommended, with correspondingly broadly defined anchor points.

Drugs for pain management in dentistry

Pain is one of the most common reasons patients seek dental treatment. It may be due to many different diseases/conditions or it may occur after treatment. Dentists must be able to diagnose the source of pain and have strategies for its management. The '3-D's' principle--diagnosis, dental treatment and drugs--should be used to manage pain. The first, and most important, step is to diagnose the condition causing the pain and identify what caused that condition. Appropriate dental treatment should then be undertaken to remove the cause of the condition as this usually provides rapid resolution of the symptoms. Drugs should only be used as an adjunct to the dental treatment. Most painful problems that require analgesics will be due to inflammation. Pain management drugs include non-narcotic analgesics (e.g., non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, etc) or opioids (i.e., narcotics). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) provide excellent pain relief due to their anti-inflammatory and analgesic action. The most common NSAIDs are aspirin and ibuprofen. Paracetamol gives very effective analgesia but has little anti-inflammatory action. The opioids are powerful analgesics but have significant side effects and therefore they should be reserved for severe pain only. The most commonly-used opioid is codeine, usually in combination with paracetamol. Corticosteroids can also be used for managing inflammation but their use in dentistry is limited to a few very specific situations.

Short-term ocular tolerability of dorzolamide 2% and brinzolamide 1% vs placebo in primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension subjects

PURPOSE

To compare ocular tolerability of dorzolamide 2%, brinzolamide 1%, and placebo given three times daily.

METHODS

A prospective, double-masked, three-centre, crossover comparison in which 25 ocular hypertensive or primary-open angle glaucoma subjects were randomized to receive dorzolamide, brinzolamide, or placebo three times daily for 3 days. Intraocular pressure, visual acuity, a visual analogue scale, and ocular and systemic symptom queries were completed at the end of each period.

RESULTS

After chronic dosing, there was a significant difference in ocular pain on the visual analogue scale among the groups at the 10-s postinstillation time point with dorzolamide having the highest level (22.5+/-28.9) compared to brinzolamide (5.0+/-8.7) or placebo (3.2+/-10.4) (P=0.0006). No differences between groups were observed preinstillation nor following dosing at 3 or 10-min postinstillation. On the initial instillation, the 10-s postinstillation pain was rated as 43.3+/-77.1, which was significantly higher than after chronic dosing (P=0.017). On the ocular symptom query, dorzolamide had the highest incidence of burning/stinging and redness compared to the other groups, but was generally characterized as mild. There were no significant differences in the visual acuity at any time point.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that subjects treated with dorzolamide suffer more ocular pain upon instillation compared to brinzolamide or placebo. However, pain symptoms are fewer following chronic dosing and are generally characterized as mild.

Acute and chronic ocular symptoms of dorzolamide 2% compared with placebo

PURPOSE

To characterize and compare the ocular comfort and symptoms of dorzolamide and tear-replacement drops (placebo) in healthy volunteers.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Subjects were randomized in a double-masked fashion to receive each medicine for 6 days twice daily. Patients used a visual analog scale to assess the quality and intensity of pain temporally after initial (acute) dosing and after 6 days of chronic dosing. The visual analog scale, an objective measure of pain, allows a subject to grade their perceived intensity of pain on a line between 0 and 100 mm.

RESULTS

Of 28 subjects enrolled in the study, 27 completed the protocol (1 subject was lost to follow-up). Dorzolamide demonstrated statistically greater peak ocular pain (21.4 +/- 22.3 mm) compared with placebo (1.9 +/- 4.4 mm) (P<0.0001) after chronic dosing. Time of mean peak pain for dorzolamide products was 15 seconds after dosing. The pain was statistically greater with dorzolamide compared with placebo for 50 seconds after dosing. On average the discomfort associated with dorzolamide lasted 38.9 +/- 17.9 seconds after dosing. The average pain per second for the first minute was 7.1 +/- 10.1 mm for dorzolamide. No differences in pain intensity were observed after acute and chronic dosing. The discomfort with dorzolamide was characterized after chronic dosing as "burning" (14.8 +/- 25.0 mm) and was associated with tearing (1.9 +/- 5.2 mm).

CONCLUSION

Dorzolamide caused more ocular pain after instillation than placebo. However, the pain was characterized as mild and quickly resolved.

A comparison of ketorolac tromethamine and acetaminophen codeine in the management of acute apical periodontitis

Effective management of severe endodontic pain is often a major problem. The analgesic effect of ketorolac tromethamine (Toradol, 10 mg p.o.) was compared with acetaminophen codeine (325 mg/15 mg p.o.) in patients with severe pain due to acute apical periodontitis in a double-blind clinical study. A total of 66 patients presenting with severe pain (defined as 7 cm and more using a visual analog scale) were randomly assigned to receive either ketorolac tromethamine or acetaminophen codeine (33 patients in each group), and recorded their pain score once every 10 min for 90 min after administration. Results indicate that patients in the ketorolac group had significantly less pain than those who received acetaminophen codeine (p = 0.005).