A placebo-controlled multi-centred evaluation of an anaesthetic gel (Oraqix) for periodontal therapy

Patient discomfort and intensity of intraseptal anesthesia of computer-controlled articaine/epinephrine delivery for scaling and root planing

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim was to assess the pain during intraseptal anesthesia (ISA) administration, as well as during and after scaling and root planing (SRP). The secondary aims pertained to comparing the pain in different jaw regions and evaluating the factors affecting pain during ISA administration, during and after SRP.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

ISA was obtained with three different doses of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (4%Ar + Ep) in 360 patients. The pain levels were measured using the visual analogue scales (VAS) for pain intensity during ISA administration (VASa), during SRP (VASi), and after SRP (VASp). These findings were then correlated with periodontal parameters. Regression analysis was performed for pain during ISA, during and after SRP.

RESULTS

Anesthesia administration was painful in 80.8% of cases. VASa negatively correlated with pocket depth (PPD). VASi showed no dose-dependency, except in mandibular premolars. VASi negatively correlated with the clinical attachment level (CAL). VASp positively correlated with PPD and CAL. Positive bleeding on probing reduced the chance of pain during ISA administration. Longer anesthesia duration and wider anesthetic field (orally) increased the prospects of painless SRP.

CONCLUSIONS

No dose-dependent differences were found regarding patient discomfort and pain intensity of ISA delivery of 4%Ar + Ep for SRP.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The pain during ISA administration was mild and well tolerated regardless of the anesthetic dose. A lower intensity of pain during SRP can be expected in patients with greater CAL. Post-treatment pain can be anticipated after SRP in the regions with greater PPD and CAL.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04392804 (May 9th, 2020).

Complications and treatment errors in nonsurgical periodontal therapy

Nonsurgical periodontal therapy can be subject to iatrogenesis, which includes all the complications directly or indirectly related to a treatment. These complications include both operator-dependent harms and errors and the consequences and adverse effects of the therapeutic procedures. The complications arising following nonsurgical periodontal treatment can be categorized as intraoperative and postoperative and can affect both soft and hard tissues at an intra-oral and extraoral level. Soft-tissues damage or damage to teeth and restorations can occur while performing the procedure. In the majority of cases, the risk of bleeding associated with nonsurgical therapy is reported to be low and easily controlled by means of local hemostatic measures, even in medicated subjects. Cervicofacial subcutaneous emphysema is not a frequent extraoral intraoperative complication, occurring during the use of air polishing. Moreover, side effects such as pain, fever, and dentine hypersensitivity are frequently reported as a consequence of nonsurgical periodontal therapy and can have a major impact on a patient's perception of the treatment provided. The level of intraoperative pain could be influenced by the types of instruments employed, the characteristics of tips, and the individual level of tolerance of the patient. Unexpected damage to teeth or restorations can also occur as a consequence of procedural errors.

Influence of local anesthesia on the outcomes of non-surgical periodontal treatment

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence of the effects of local anesthesia (LA) on outcomes of non-surgical periodontal treatment (NSPT), in particular among the Chinese. This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the effects of LA on short-term treatment outcomes of NSPT and to determine under what circumstances LA should be prescribed to improve these outcomes.

METHODS

Data from periodontal examinations of 3980 patients were used. The data were from 3-month re-evaluation records of an electronic periodontal charting record system in the Department of Periodontology of Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology from June 2008 to January 2015. Descriptive analyses included changes in probing depth (PD) and the Mazza bleeding index (BI). Two-level (patient and tooth) logistic regression models and three-level (patient, tooth, and site) linear regression models were constructed to analyze the influence of LA on PD for all teeth/sites and teeth/sites with an initial PD ≥ 5 mm. Decreases in PD and BI at sites under LA using the initial PD were also compared.

RESULTS

A significantly higher mean decrease in PD after NSPT was found in the LA group than in the no local anesthesia (NLA) group (0.98 vs. 0.54 mm, t = 24.12, P < 0.001). A significantly higher probability of decreases was found in the LA group in BI (percentages of teeth with BI > 1 and BI > 2) for all teeth (16.7% vs. 13.8%, t = 3.75, P < 0.001; 34.7% vs. 28.1%, t = 6.73, P < 0.001) and PD for teeth with PD ≥ 5 mm (32.3% vs. 17.3%, t = 28.48, P < 0.001). The difference in PD between the LA and NLA groups increased as the initial PD increased. The difference between the two groups was 0.12 to 0.22 mm for sites with a baseline PD < 7 mm; however, it increased to 0.41 to 1.37 mm for sites with a baseline PD ≥ 7 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

LA improved the decrease in PD after NSPT. Root debridement at sites with initial PD ≥ 7 mm should be performed under routine LA.

Palatal needle-free anesthesia for upper molars extraction. A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the ability of liposomal and non-liposomal lidocaine and prilocaine in hydrogel formulations to promote topical anesthesia in palatal mucosa during upper molar extractions.

METHODS

In this randomized, cross over, triple-blinded clinical trial, a liposomal and a non-liposomal formulation of the eutectic mixture of local anesthetics, 2.5% lidocaine and 2.5% prilocaine, were used to promote palatal anesthesia without the local anesthetic infiltration during bilateral upper molars extractions.

RESULTS

From the total of 40 patients included in this study, the non-liposomal eutectic lidocaine-prilocaine formulation failed in 40% of cases, unlike the liposomal formulation, which was effective for all patients (Fisher's exact test, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, the liposomal formulation (26.75 ± 7,47 min) induced longer anesthesia duration (t-test, p < 0.0001) than the non-liposomal formulation (16.78 ± 4.75 min). No mucosal ulceration or discomfort was reported for both formulations.

CONCLUSION

The liposomal formulation was able to induce adequate anesthesia in palatal mucosa during dental extraction, avoiding the local anesthetic infiltration. For the first time, a topical formulation allowed upper molars surgical removal without injection of any local anesthetic agent into palatal mucosa in adults.

Liposomal anesthetic gel for pain control during periodontal therapy in adults: a placebo-controlled RCT

INTRODUCTION

Periodontal therapy usually requires local anesthesia. If effective, a non-invasive, liposomal anesthetic gel could increase the levels of acceptance of patients in relation to periodontal therapy.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the efficacy of liposomal anesthetic gel for pain control during periodontal therapy.

METHODOLOGY

Forty volunteers with moderate to severe chronic periodontitis were recruited, of which at least three sextants required periodontal therapy. At least one of the selected teeth had one site with a probing depth of ≥4 mm. The volunteers received the following three gels: a placebo, lidocaine/prilocaine (Oraqix®), or a liposomal lidocaine/prilocaine, which were applied to different sextants. Pain frequency was registered during treatment and the volunteers received a digital counter to register any painful or uncomfortable experiences. At the end of each session, the volunteers indicated their pain intensity using rating scales (NRS-101 and VRS-4). The volunteers had their hemodynamic parameters measured by a non-invasive digital monitor.

RESULTS

Pain frequency/intensity did not show statistical difference between intervention groups. The tested gels did not interfere with the hemodynamic indices. Dental anxiety, suppuration and probing depth could influence pain during periodontal therapy.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest limited indications for the use of non-invasive anesthesia when used for scaling and root planing. Intra-pocket anesthetic gel could be a good option for anxious patients, or those who have a fear of needles.

Comparative evaluation of efficacy of EMLA and needleless jet anesthesia in non-surgical periodontal therapy

The treatment of periodontitis primarily consists of mechanical debridement carried out by means of thorough scaling and root planing that might sometimes be a painful procedure which requires the administration of some form of local anesthesia. The present study comparatively evaluates the anesthetic effect of three such forms, viz; eutectic mixture of 25 mg/g lignocaine plus 25 mg/g prilocaine (EMLA) and needleless jet anesthesia during SRP. 30 patients with probing depth of 5 mm or more and visual analog scale (VAS) score of ≥30 mm on probing were selected and asked to assess the pain by VAS and verbal rating scale (VRS) during SRP after application of the two agents. The difference between the visual analogue values of control, EMLA and Madajet XL is highly significant (p < 0.001). According to the VRS scores, 6.7% of the subjects in the EMLA group reported no pain, 80% mild pain, and 13.3% moderate pain. In the Madajet XL group, 46.7% reported no pain and 53.3% mild pain. In the control group 100% of the patients reported moderate pain when none of the anesthetic was administered. None reported severe pain. Thus, the data suggest that both anesthetics are able to produce anesthesia of the tissues. The needleless anesthesia was relatively superior in performance to EMLA.

Recent advances in topical anesthesia

Topical anesthetics act on the peripheral nerves and reduce the sensation of pain at the site of application. In dentistry, they are used to control local pain caused by needling, placement of orthodontic bands, the vomiting reflex, oral mucositis, and rubber-dam clamp placement. Traditional topical anesthetics contain lidocaine or benzocaine as active ingredients and are used in the form of solutions, creams, gels, and sprays. Eutectic mixtures of local anesthesia cream, a mixture of various topical anesthetics, has been reported to be more potent than other anesthetics. Recently, new products with modified ingredients and application methods have been introduced into the market. These products may be used for mild pain during periodontal treatment, such as scaling. Dentists should be aware that topical anesthetics, although rare, might induce allergic reactions or side effects as a result of an overdose. Topical anesthetics are useful aids during dental treatment, as they reduce dental phobia, especially in children, by mitigating discomfort and pain.

Topical intrapocket anesthesia during scaling and root planing: a randomized clinical trial

Although the use of injectable anesthesia prior to subgingival scaling and root planing (SRP) reduces pain, many patients report fear and prolonged numbness of adjacent tissues. The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of a eutectic mixture containing 25 mg/g of lidocaine and 25 mg/g of prilocaine, injectable 2% lidocaine, topical 2% benzocaine and a placebo substance on reducing pain during SRP. In this randomized, split-mouth, masked clinical trial, thirty-two patients presenting more than two teeth with probing depth and clinical attachment level ≥ 5 mm in at least 4 sextants were randomly allocated to four groups: EMLA(r); injectable 2% lidocaine; topical 2% benzocaine and placebo. Pain and discomfort were measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and verbal scale (VS). Repeated-measures analysis of variance and Poisson regression were used for analysis. Patient satisfaction with the anesthesia was determined at the end of each treatment session. VAS and VS scores did not differ between injectable 2% lidocaine and EMLA (p > 0.05) and both substances showed significantly better pain control compared to 2% benzocaine and placebo (p < 0.05). 93.7% and 81.2% of the individuals were satisfied with the injectable anesthetic and EMLA, respectively (p = 0.158). Dissatisfaction with benzocaine and placebo was approximately 10 times greater than injectable anesthesia (p = 0.001). In conclusion, EMLA showed an equivalent effect on pain control when compared to the injectable anesthesia and performed better than 2% benzocaine in SRP. Thus, EMLA is a viable anesthetic option during scaling and root planning, despite the frequent need for second application.

Intra-pocket anaesthesia and pain during probing, scaling and root planing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

A systematic review/meta-analysis was performed to evaluate pain during probing, scaling and root planing using intra-pocket anaesthesia versus placebo in adult patients.

METHODS

A search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database, Brazilian Library in Dentistry, Cochrane Library and Grey literature. IADR abstracts, unpublished trials registries, dissertations and theses were also searched for randomized clinical trials comparing the clinical effectiveness of intra-pocket anaesthesia and placebo. Risk/intensity of pain was the primary outcome. The risk of bias tool from the Cochrane Collaboration was used for quality assessment. Meta-analysis was performed on studies considered at low risk of bias.

RESULTS

A total of 1740 articles were identified. Eleven remained in the qualitative synthesis, and nine studies were considered at "low" risk of bias for meta-analysis. Standardized Hedge's g mean difference for pain intensity using visual analogue scale and Heft-Parker pain scales was -0.576 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.94 to -0.22; p = 0.002) and for verbal rating scale pain scale it was -1.814 (95% CI -3.38 to -0.245; p = 0.023). The odds ratio for the risk of pain was 0.025 (95% CI 0.003 to 0.25; p = 0.002) and the odds ratio for the need for rescue anaesthesia it was 0.358 (95% CI 0.174 to 0.736; p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

The anaesthetic gel decreases the risk and intensity of pain during probing/SRP.

A randomized placebo-controlled trial to evaluate a novel noninjectable anesthetic gel with thermosetting agent during scaling and root planing in chronic periodontitis patients

Aim:

To study the efficacy of a noninjectable anesthetic gel with a thermosetting agent in the reduction of pain during scaling and root planing (SRP) in untreated chronic periodontitis patients.

Materials and Methods:

This study is a randomized, double-masked, split-mouth, placebo-controlled trial. Thirty patients were enrolled who underwent SRP in a split-mouth (right side/left side) manner. Before commencement of SRP, both quadrants on each side were isolated and had a randomized gel (either placebo or test gel) placed in the periodontal pockets for 30 s. The pain was measured using numerical rating scale (NRS) and verbal rating scale (VRS).

Results:

The median NRS pain score for the patients treated with the anesthetic test gel was 1 (range: 0-4) as opposed to 5 (range: 3-7) in the placebo treated patients. The mean rank of pain score using NRS in test gel was 16.18 as compared to 44.82 in placebo treated sites. Hence, significant reduction in pain was found in test gel as compared to placebo using NRS (P < 0.001). The VRS showed that the majority of patients reported no pain or mild pain with a median of 1 as compared to placebo treated sites with a median of 2 suggestive of moderate pain.

Conclusions:

The NRS and VRS pain scores showed that the side treated with anesthetic gel was statistically more effective than the placebo in reducing pain during SRP.

Comparative Evaluation of Pain Scores during Periodontal Probing with or without Anesthetic Gels

Context. The initial periodontal examination which includes full-mouth periodontal probing is one of the discomforting procedures for a patient. Aim. To evaluate the efficacy of two local anesthetic gels in the reduction of pain during periodontal probing using Florida probe in CGP patients in comparison with manual probing. Materials and Methods. Ninety systemically healthy patients with moderate to severe CGP patients were recruited. In each patient, the quadrants were randomly assigned to manual probing with UNC-15 probe, probing with Florida probe, and Florida probing with lidocaine 10% gel and with benzocaine 20% gel. In the quadrants undergoing probing with anesthetic gels, the sites were isolated and the gel was injected using syringe and a blunt-end cannula. Pain was measured using 10 mm horizontal VAS. Statistical Analysis. The analysis was carried out using SPSS version 18. The comparison of mean VAS scores was done using repeated measures ANOVA with post hoc Bonferroni test. Results. Mean VAS for manual probing was significantly more than Florida probing. Further, the mean VAS score for Florida probing was higher than the two gels. Conclusion. It is suggested that the gels might be useful in reducing pain experienced during full-mouth periodontal probing in patients with CGP.

Relief of Injection Pain During Delivery of Local Anesthesia by Computer-Controlled Anesthetic Delivery System for Periodontal Surgery: Randomized Clinical Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Pain from local anesthetic injection makes patients anxious when visiting a dental clinic. This study aims to determine differences in pain according to types of local anesthetizing methods and to identify the possible contributing factors (e.g., dental anxiety, stress, and sex).

METHODS

Thirty-one patients who underwent open-flap debridement in maxillary premolar and molar areas during treatment for chronic periodontitis were evaluated for this study. A randomized, split-mouth, single-masked clinical trial was implemented. The dental anxiety scale (DAS) and perceived stress scale (PSS) were administered before surgery. Two lidocaine ampules for each patient were used for local infiltration anesthesia (supraperiosteal injection). Injection pain was measured immediately after local infiltration anesthesia using the visual analog pain scale (VAS) questionnaire. Results from the questionnaire were used to assess degree of pain patients feel when a conventional local anesthetic technique (CNV) is used compared with a computer-controlled anesthetic delivery system (CNR).

RESULTS

DAS and PSS did not correlate to injection pain. VAS scores were lower for CNR than for CNV regardless of the order in which anesthetic procedures were applied. VAS score did not differ significantly with sex. Pearson coefficient for correlation between VAS scores for the two procedures was 0.80, also indicating a strong correlation.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of the present study, relief from injection pain is observed using CNR.

Efficacy of an Anesthetic Gel in the Reduction of Pain During Impression Making

Introduction

Gingival tissue displacement can be an uncomfortable procedure, often performed without injectable local anesthesia. The present study evaluated the efficacy of an anesthetic gel in reducing pain during this procedure.

Material and Methods

Thirty patients undergoing definitive dental impression, for fabricating full-coverage restorations, were evaluated for pain perception on displacement of the surrounding gingival tissues. All the participants were randomly divided into two groups. Five minutes before the insertion of the displacement cord, the anesthetic gel, a mixture of 5% lidocaine and 5% prilocaine, was applied in the sulcus of test group patients. Each patient was asked to complete the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS).

Results

In the two scales considered, test group patients showed a statistically significant pain reduction (VAS p=0.0002, VRS p=0.01054) compared to control group patients.

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this study, a clinically significant efficacy of the anesthetic gel was noticed during gingival displacement procedures.

Influence of intra-pocket anesthesia gel on treatment outcome in periodontal patients: a randomized controlled trial

AIM

Compare the treatment outcome after scaling and root-planing using local anesthesia gel or injected local anesthesia.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Thirty-eight patients with periodontitis and good general health were included in a randomized, single-blind, split-mouth clinical trial. Probing depths and clinical attachment levels were recorded at baseline and 6 weeks after treatment. Performed treatment procedures were scaling and root planing using two types of local anesthesia for separate treatment appointments. Anesthetics used were intra-pocket lidocaine and prilocaine gel (2.5% each) and injected articaine (1:100,000 adrenaline). Type of anesthesia for first appointment was randomized and switched for second appointment. Patients' pain perception and anesthesia acceptance were recorded on questionnaires.

RESULTS

No influence of applied type of anesthesia could be detected for change of probing pocket depths and clinical attachment level (p > 0.05). These findings are valid even for deeper pockets. Gel-group had significant higher intra-operative pain perception. In retrospect 69% of patients favored gel.

CONCLUSION

Treatment outcome is not compromised by use of anesthesia gel in comparison to injected anesthesia. The same beneficial results for probing pocket depths and clinical attachment gain could be detected. The majority of patients prefer local anesthesia gel despite a slightly greater procedural discomfort.

Anesthetic efficacy of Oraqix® versus Hurricaine® and placebo for pain control during non-surgical periodontal treatment

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of Oraqix® during scaling and root planing (SRP) in comparison with 20% benzocaine and placebo. Study Design: 15 patients requiring 4 sessions of SRP were enrolled. For each patient, Oraqix®, Hurricaine®, vaseline or no anesthetic product were randomly assigned each to a quadrant. Treatment pain was evaluated on a 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and on a Verbal Rating Scale (VRS). The amount of product administered, the need to re-anesthetise, patient and operator satisfaction and the onset of side-effects were also recorded. Results: Oraqix® was significantly better than nothing, with a reduction of VAS score to 13.3 units, but without significant differences with Vaseline or Hurricaine®. Oraqix® was better in VRS reduction than not using any anesthetic (p=0.001) or using vaseline (p=0.024), but similar to Hurricaine® (p=0.232). Conclusions: Oraqix® effectively controls pain in SRP procedures, with few side-effects and a good acceptance on the part of patients and clinicians.

Key words:Controlled clinical trial, topical anesthetic, scaling and root planing.

Pocket-depths-related effectiveness of an intrapocket anaesthesia gel in periodontal maintenance patients

AIM

The aim of this study was to determine the impact of the pocket depth on the effectiveness of an intrapocket anaesthesia gel during SRP in periodontal maintenance patients. Effectiveness was measured by pain levels during SRP via visual analogue scale (VAS) and verbal rating scale (VRS). Secondary endpoint was the evaluation of patients' preferred choice of anaesthesia for SRP.

METHODS

A total of 638 patients undergoing the periodontal maintenance programme and with the need for SRP participated in this observational study. After SRP, patients filled in questionnaires to record pain levels experienced and anaesthesia preference for future use. Mann-Whitney U-test was used to analyse intergroup difference in pain perception and anaesthesia choice.

RESULTS

Overall, increasing pocket depths were accompanied by higher pain levels, irrespective of maximum or commonest pocket depths (P < 0.05). For SRP procedures, patients definitely prefer the anaesthesia gel (72.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, an effectiveness of local anaesthesia gel (lidocaine/prilocaine) related to pocket depths was found in periodontal maintenance patients during SRP. Increasing pocket depths were accompanied by increasing procedural pain levels. Nevertheless, the anaesthesia gel is well accepted and in the majority of cases was found to be the preferred option for future SRP treatments.

A placebo-controlled trial to evaluate an anesthetic gel when probing in patients with advanced periodontitis

BACKGROUND

The baseline periodontal examination is reported to be a painful dental procedure, but currently there are limited practical techniques to reduce this pain. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of an intrapocket anesthetic gel in the reduction of pain on periodontal probing in a group of untreated patients with generalized chronic periodontitis (CP).

METHODS

This study is a randomized, double-masked, split-mouth, placebo-controlled trial. Thirty consecutive patients meeting the inclusion criteria had full-mouth periodontal probing performed in a split-mouth (right side/left side) manner. Before probing, both quadrants on each side were isolated and had a randomized gel (either placebo or test gel) placed in the periodontal pockets for 30 seconds. Pain was measured using two ungraded 100-mm horizontal visual analog scales (VAS) representing right and left sides of the mouth.

RESULTS

The mean ± SD VAS for the test gel was 23.5 ± 16.8 mm, and the mean ± SD VAS for the placebo gel was 23.5 ± 14.6 mm. The mean ± SD difference in VAS was 51.6 ± 28.11 mm in favor of the anesthetic gel, and only age was found to be a marginally significant predictor.

CONCLUSIONS

The VAS pain scores showed favorable anesthetic efficacy of the test gel compared to a placebo gel in reducing patients' pain on periodontal probing in a group of patients with generalized CP. It suggests that the gel may be used for patients who find the full-mouth periodontal probing experience particularly painful in view of other tested alternatives.

Drug carrier nanoparticles that penetrate human chronic rhinosinusitis mucus

No effective therapies currently exist for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), a persistent inflammatory condition characterized by the accumulation of highly viscoelastic mucus (CRSM) in the sinuses. Nanoparticle therapeutics offer promise for localized therapies for CRS, but must penetrate CRSM in order to avoid washout during sinus cleansing and to reach underlying epithelial cells. Prior research has not established whether nanoparticles can penetrate the tenacious CRSM barrier, or instead become trapped. Here, we first measured the diffusion rates of polystyrene nanoparticles and the same nanoparticles modified with muco-inert polyethylene glycol (PEG) coatings in fresh, minimally perturbed CRSM collected during endoscopic sinus surgery from CRS patients with and without nasal polyp. We found that uncoated polystyrene particles, previously shown to be mucoadhesive in a number of human mucus secretions, were immobilized in all CRSM samples tested. In contrast, densely PEGylated particles as large as 200 nm were able to readily penetrate all CRSM samples from patients with CRS alone, and nearly half of CRSM samples from patients with nasal polyp. Based on the mobility of different sized PEGylated particles, we estimated the average pore size of fresh CRSM to be at least 150 ± 50 nm. Guided by these studies, we formulated mucus-penetrating particles composed of poly(lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) and Pluronics, two materials with a long history of safety and use in humans. We showed that these biodegradable particles are capable of rapidly penetrating CRSM at average speeds up to only 20-fold slower than their theoretical speeds in water. Our findings strongly support the development of mucus-penetrating nanomedicines for the treatment of CRS.

Effect of eutectic mixture of local anesthetics on pain perception during scaling by ultrasonic or hand instruments: a masked randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The aims of this study are to evaluate the efficacy of a eutectic mixture of local anesthetic (EMLA) cream on pain perception during scaling and to compare the intensities of pain provoked by hand and ultrasonic instruments.

METHODS

Forty subjects with chronic gingivitis or periodontitis were enrolled in the study. In this randomized, split-mouth, controlled, masked clinical trial, each of the four quadrants in subjects was randomly assigned to receive one of the following protocols: scaling with an ultrasonic scaler with or without the application of the EMLA cream or scaling with a Gracey curet with or without the application of the EMLA cream. Pain levels after each quadrant of scaling were assessed with a visual analog scale (VAS; 0 to 100 mm) and verbal rating score (VRS; 0 to 4). All subjects were recalled to detect any complications after 24 hours.

RESULTS

The mean VAS and VRS when EMLA cream was applied (18.39 ± 14.47 mm and 0.95 ± 0.69) were significantly lower (P <0.001 for VAS and VRS) compared to when EMLA cream was not used (26.54 ± 16.46 mm and 1.30 ± 0.75). The mean VAS and VRS of the ultrasonic scaler group (20.43 ± 16.40 mm and 0.98 ± 0.76) were significantly lower (P = 0.024 for VAS; P = 0.003 for VRS) than those of the Gracey curet group (24.50 ± 15.17 mm and 1.28 ± 0.69). None of the subjects showed adverse effects after EMLA-cream application.

CONCLUSION

Although most patients experienced limited pain during scaling, a significant reduction of pain is achieved by using EMLA cream and ultrasonic scaler.

A novel lidocaine hydrochloride ophthalmic gel for topical ocular anesthesia

Topical anesthetics play an important role in the practice of ophthalmology, both for procedures in the office and in the operating room. The need for safe, long-acting topical ocular anesthetic agents is ongoing, and has been highlighted by the increase of intravitreal administration of pharmacologic agents. Current practices for ocular anesthesia include subconjunctival injection of 2% aqueous lidocaine, topical 2% lidocaine drops and topical 0.5% tetracaine. Tetracaine is not yet FDA approved, and is associated with corneal epithelial toxicity and delayed epithelial healing after multiple administrations. Lidocaine jelly (2%) preparations have been reported to be beneficial in several systemic procedures, including those of the upper airway, dental, urogenital, and gastrointestinal. It has been theorized, and recent studies support the idea, that gel formulations of lidocaine may enhance anesthetic effect, and therefore be superior to anesthetic solutions for topical cataract surgery. The viscous nature of gel formulations is thought to lengthen contact time, resulting in better anesthesia at lower drug concentrations. Furthermore, several studies suggest that lidocaine is bactericidal and bacteriostatic, and may have a supplementary role in preventing and treating surgical site infections. Akten™, lidocaine 3.5% gel (Akorn, Buffalo Grove, IIlinois) was FDA approved for all ophthalmic procedures in October 2008. This gel is a preservative-free, lidocaine-based anesthetic gel consisting of 35 mg/mL of lidocaine hydrochloride. We describe the properties, including chemical structure, indications, evidence of support, use, adverse effects, and precautions, which we believe enable Akten to provide superior anesthesia, while minimizing side effects.

Healing pattern of experimental soft tissue lacerations after application of novel topical anesthetic agents - an experimental study in rabbits

Topical anesthetics based on a combination of 2.5% lidocaine and 2.5% prilocaine are efficient in eliminating pain from needle stick when placed on skin and oral mucosa. This suggests their application in soft tissue lacerations before suturing to enable pain-free exploration and suturing of traumatic lacerations without prior injection needle stick. The aim of the present study was to study the healing of experimental oral lacerations after topical anesthetic substances were placed in the lacerations. Thirty-six standardized incisions were made bilaterally in the lower and the upper labial mucosa of nine white New Zealand rabbits. All wounds were intentionally contaminated with saliva to simulate laceration wounds in trauma situation. EMLA cream and Oraqix thermosetting gel were applied into 30 lacerations and six lacerations were left untreated as control. In some lacerations the topical anesthetic agent was left in the wound, while in others they were rinsed off by saline before suturing the laceration wound. The rabbits were then killed after 3 days, 2 weeks and 4 weeks of healing and the lips were processed for histological evaluation. Similar normal histological healing patterns were seen in wounds in which EMLA and Oraqix were applied compared with control lacerations at all stages of healing. No adverse tissue or foreign body reactions were seen in any of the lacerations. We conclude that EMLA and Oraqix can be used in oral mucosal lacerations prior to suturing without the risk of adverse tissue reaction.

A preliminary study of intra-pocket topical versus injected anaesthetic for scaling and root planing

AIM

Compare the efficacy of topical benzocaine gel to injected lidocaine during scaling and root planing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In each of 21 participants undergoing root planing, two dental quadrants were randomly assigned to receive topical 20% benzocaine gel delivered subgingivally (TOP) or injection anaesthesia using 2% lidocaine (INJ). Baseline, intra- and immediate post-operative pain was assessed using the Heft-Parker pain scale. Intra-subject differences (INJ-TOP) were analysed using paired t-tests and mixed models.

RESULTS

Baseline and post-operative pain did not differ between treatments (p>0.50). The injected anaesthetic, however, was associated with less intra-operative pain than the topical (INJ-TOP=-24.9 mm, p=0.005) Six participants required rescue (injected) anaesthesia during treatment with the topical. Eleven participants (52%) preferred topical over injected anaesthetic. Among these 11, intra-operative pain scores did not differ significantly (TOP=38.6 mm, INJ=28.4 mm, p=0.23). Among those who preferred the injected anaesthetic, intra-operative pain scores differed significantly (TOP=84.7 mm, INJ=43.8 mm, p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Intra-pocket benzocaine gel is less effective than injected lidocaine in controlling pain during scaling and planing. Anaesthetic preference was related to the level of pain experienced during treatment with the topical. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Comparison of topical anesthetics (EMLA/Oraqix vs. benzocaine) on pain experienced during palatal needle injection

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the topical anesthetic effect of 20% benzocaine gel with 2.5% lidocaine/2.5% prilocaine (L/P) cream and gel on the pain experienced during palatal anesthetic infiltration.

STUDY DESIGN

Two groups were studied, each containing 20 subjects. Two types of L/P mixtures were tested, an anesthetic cream (EMLA) and a thermosetting gel (Oraqix), and benzocaine was used as control. The topical agents were applied on the palatal mucosa at the canine region. A needle prick was given on each side every 2 minutes during a period of 10 minutes. The subjects recorded their findings using verbal and VAS scales.

RESULTS

Pain scores were significantly less (P < .05) with EMLA and Oraqix than with benzocaine.

CONCLUSION

Topical application of EMLA and Oraqix before palatal anesthetic infiltration is associated with less pain than with benzocaine gel.

Ability of Examiners to Estimate the Pain Experienced by Patients From Probing During Initial Periodontal Examination

BACKGROUND

The aims of the present study were to identify the level of pain experienced by patients from probing during periodontal examination, and to determine to what extent the examining periodontist and the dental assistant could estimate the degree of pain experienced by the patients.

METHODS

For each of three periodontists, 20 patients referred for periodontal diagnosis and treatment were selected. The periodontist carried out his examination, which included probing at six sites per tooth. Following probing, the patients rated the pain using a visual analog scale (VAS). The periodontist and the dental assistant who helped out during the examination independently rated the pain level they perceived that each patient experienced, also using a VAS.

RESULTS

Most patients showed low pain responses to probing. However, using an arbitrary threshold of VAS > or =40 mm to indicate significant pain, some patients had a painful experience. Differences were observed between the pain levels expressed by the three groups of patients. While two of the three periodontists were able to appraise the pain experienced by their patients, the third was not.

CONCLUSIONS

It seems important that the periodontist at the first encounter with the patient should be sensitive to the discomfort the examination may entail. This may influence the patients' decision to accept the required treatment, and may also affect the patients' attitude to and co-operation with the subsequent treatment.

Patient evaluation of a novel non-injectable anesthetic gel: a multicenter crossover study comparing the gel to infiltration anesthesia during scaling and root planing

BACKGROUND

Periodontal scaling procedures commonly require some kind of anesthesia. From the patient's perspective, the choice of anesthetic method is a trade-off between the degree of anesthesia and accepting the side effects. The present study evaluates the preferences for a novel non-injection anesthetic product (a gel, containing lidocaine 25 mg/g plus prilocaine 25 mg/g and thermosetting agents) versus injection anesthesia (lidocaine 2% adrenaline) in conjunction with scaling and/or root planing (SRP).

METHODS

In a multicenter, crossover, randomized, open study patients were asked, after they had experienced both products, if they preferred anesthetic gel or injection anesthesia. In addition, the adequacy of anesthesia and occurrence of post-procedure problems were assessed. The patients were also asked about their willingness to return if they were offered anesthetic gel at their next visit and their maximum willingness to pay (WTP) for this option.

RESULTS

One-hundred seventy (170) patients at eight centers in Belgium were included in the study. There were 157 per protocol (PP) patients. A vast majority of the PP patients (70%) preferred the anesthetic gel to injection anesthesia (22%). The most common reason was less post-procedure numbness. Eighty percent (80%) of the patients expressed satisfactory anesthesia with the gel and 96% with injection anesthesia (P <0.001). Post-procedure problems were significantly less with the gel than with injection (P <0.001): numbness 15% versus 66%, unpleasant sensations such as soreness and pain 44% versus 63%, and problems connected with daily activities 19% versus 69%. The majority of patients (60%) who preferred gel were also willing to pay for it. A conservative estimate of the median WTP was $10.00. Furthermore, anesthetic gel would make almost every second patient (45%) more or much more willing to return for the next treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest that a somewhat less profound anesthesia with gel is clearly preferred by the patients because of the low incidence of post-procedure problems as compared to conventional injection anesthesia. The median WTP is likely in excess of the acquisition cost of the product, which indicates a favorable cost-benefit ratio for the individual patient.

Quantification and analysis of pain in nonsurgical scaling and/or root planing

BACKGROUND

Three efficacy studies, comprising a database of 337 subjects, were conducted as part of the clinical evaluation of the noninjectable anesthetic gel Oraqix (AstraZeneca, Södertälje, Sweden). The authors discuss some of the challenges encountered when they interpreted the results of the clinical studies and present the results from an alternative analysis of the anesthetic efficacy.

METHODS

The three multicenter studies were double-blind, randomized and placebo-controlled. Clinicians applied gel in the subjects' periodontal pockets before scaling and/or root planing, or SRP. Subjects recorded overall pain on a 100-millimeter visual analog scale, or VAS. In the studies, the evaluation of the anesthetic efficacy was based on absolute treatment difference (active-placebo). Investigators used an alternative post hoc approach to evaluate the effect expressed as a ratio (active:placebo).

RESULTS

The studies demonstrated consistent and significant lower pain scores for the anesthetic gel versus the placebo gel, with point estimates of absolute treatment difference being 8, 4 and 10 mm. The alternative analysis verified that the estimated treatment effect in terms of a ratio was close to 50 percent in all three studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment effects of the anesthetic gel relative to the placebo gel were described more appropriately by means of ratios instead of absolute differences. In this sample of 337 subjects, it was shown that pain was reduced by 50 percent when the anesthetic gel was used compared with when the placebo gel was used.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The authors found that the anesthetic periodontal gel is effective in reducing pain resulting from SRP.

Plasma levels of lidocaine, o-toluidine, and prilocaine after application of 8.5 g Oraqix in patients with generalized periodontitis: effect on blood methemoglobin and tolerability

Oraqix, a novel non-injectable anesthetic gel containing lidocaine and prilocaine and a thermosetting agent has been developed to provide localized anesthesia in periodontal pockets during scaling/root planing (SRP). The aim of this open study was to determine the plasma levels of lidocaine and prilocaine following application of 8.5 g Oraqix (5 cartridges) to 11 patients with generalized periodontitis (> or = 49% of tooth pockets > or = 5 mm and > or = 23% of pockets > or = 6 mm). Oraqix was applied to the pockets during periodontal probing and SRP over a 2.6 3.4 h period. Blood samples were collected up to 10 h after the start of application of Oraqix. Peak plasma levels of lidocaine (0.16-0.55 mg/L) and prilocaine (0.05-0.18 mg/L) occurred 2.0-3.7 h and 2.0-3.3 h, respectively, after the start of application of Oraqix. These levels are well below threshold levels for initial signs of central nervous system (CNS) toxicity. In conclusion, application of 8.5 g Oraqix (212.5 mg of lidocaine base and 212.5 mg of prilocaine base) in periodontal pockets was well tolerated and displayed a wide safety margin with respect to plasma levels normally associated with systemic toxicity.