Prilocaine versus lignocaine for minor lid procedures

Patient Comfort with Various Local Infiltration Anesthetics for Minor Oculoplastic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although local anesthetics have been extensively studied, limited evidence is available regarding the optimal solution for maximizing patient comfort in minor oculoplastic procedures.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the optimal anesthetic solution for local infiltration in minor oculoplastic surgeries to maximize patient comfort.

METHODS

This systematic review with network meta-analysis of prospective studies was conducted to understand the efficacy of different local anesthetics in combination to maximize patient comfort. The study was designed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The population comprised patients receiving local infiltration anesthesia in minor oculoplastic surgeries. Various anesthetics with adjuvants were compared with respect to injection pain, operative bleeding, and complications. Random-effects model was performed. The primary outcome of injection pain was measured using the visual analog scale (VAS) or a preference question (which intervention was the least painful). Other outcomes were operative bleeding and complications, which were evaluated with a similar preference question.

RESULTS

Eleven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of 521 patients (917 eyes) were included. The network meta-analysis revealed that "bicarbonate-buffered lidocaine with epinephrine" led to a significant decrease in injection pain (preference question) compared to "prilocaine with felypressin" and "lidocaine with epinephrine," whereas no significant differences were detected in the analysis of injection pain measured using the VAS.

CONCLUSIONS

"Bicarbonate-buffered lidocaine with epinephrine" may be the optimal anesthetic solution for local infiltration in minor oculoplastic surgeries due to reduced injection pain, operative bleeding, and postoperative swelling. However, this should be interpreted cautiously as the confidence in the evidence was very low.

THE CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021260332 (PROSPERO).

Local anesthesia in oral and maxillofacial surgery: A review of current opinion

Local anesthesia (LA) is the most important pain management process in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Safe and effective LA not only enable patients to obtain high-quality treatment, but also relieve the anxiety of patients when they come to the clinic. The choices of local anesthetic and injection methods determine the success of LA to a great extent. At present, in most countries or regions, common local anesthetics used in oral and maxillofacial surgery belong to amides and they are injected into patients' body mainly through block or infiltration anesthesia. In addition, the operators' technique level, patient's subjective psychology and anatomical variation of maxillofacial structure also have a strong influence on LA in dental clinic. Due to the existence of above factors, the worldwide success rates of LA in oral and maxillofacial surgery is very different. There are no specific LA methods that ensure 100% successful LA rates. Fortunately, the development of new local anesthetic and injection technology are providing us with new ideas to solve this problem. This review mainly report the new research progress on LA in oral and maxillofacial surgery in recent decades and help clinicians with dental LA operation.

Impact of maxillary teeth morphology on the failure rate of local anesthesia

Objective:

To investigate the effect of maxillary single and multiple rooted teeth on the success rate of buccal infiltration anesthesia.

Subjects and Methods:

This clinical study was performed by dividing the participants into three groups. Group one included 30 patients with upper anterior teeth, group two 23 patients with upper premolars teeth and group three 39 patients with upper molars for extraction. Onset time of anesthtic action was evaluted by using electronic pulp tester. Pulp testing assessments were carried out immediately before the injection and at the intervals of 2 mins following the injection until the anesthetic success obtains.

Results:

Seventy-nine patients in this study secured anesthetic success within study duration time (10 min). However, there were 13 patients with dental anesthesia failures (3 patients with single rooted teeth and 10 patients with multiple rooted teeth). There were no significant differences in the mean onset time of pulpal anesthesia between the anterior, middle and posterior teeth (P value = 0.449). Clinically, patients with single rooted teeth reported faster dental anesthesia and earlier teeth extraction than patients with multiple rooted teeth.

Conclusion:

This study showed that the single rooted teeth have faster pulpal anesthesia and early extraction than teeth with multiple roots but not statistically significant. Administration of extra local anesthetic cartridge or using intraseptal injection technique can be a solution to overcome the failure of anesthesia in the maxillary posterior teeth.

2% lidocaine versus 3% prilocaine for oral and maxillofacial surgery

Objective

To investigate the speed of action and injection discomfort of 2% lidocaine and 3% prilocaine for upper teeth extractions.

Materials and Methods

Forty-six patients were included in the prilocaine 3% group, and 46 in the lidocaine 2% control group. After all injections, soft and hard tissue numbness was objectively gauged by dental probe at intervals of 15 s. Moreover, the pain of the injections was recorded by the patients after each treatment on standard 100 mm visual analog scales, tagged at the endpoints with "no pain" (0 mm) and "unbearable pain" (100 mm).

Results

There were no significant differences in the meantime of first numbness to associated buccal, palatal mucosa, and tooth of patients in the lidocaine and prilocaine buccal infiltration groups (P = 0.56, 0.37, and 0.33). However, clinically, the patients in prilocaine group recorded earlier buccal, palatal mucosa, and teeth numbness than those in lidocaine group. With regards to the discomfort of the needle injections, there was a significant difference for lidocaine and prilocaine groups when comparing the post buccal scores with the post palatal injection scores (t-test: P < 0.001). Lidocaine and prilocaine buccal injections were significantly more comfortable than palatal injections.

Conclusions

Using 2% lidocaine and 3% prilocaine for extractions of upper maxillary teeth produces similarly successful anesthesia. Clinically, prilocaine has slightly rapid onset of action, earlier buccal mucosa, hard palate, and teeth numbness. Prilocaine and lidocaine buccal injection was significantly more comfortable than palatal injection.