Predicting intraoperative pain in emergency endodontic patients: clinical study

Analysis of Pediatric Pulpotomy, Pulpectomy, and Extractions in Primary Teeth Revealed No Significant Association with Subsequent Root Canal Therapy and Extractions in Permanent Teeth: A Retrospective Study

Recent evidence suggests that an ever-growing number of pediatric patients require invasive treatments such as root canal therapy (RCT) in their permanent dentition, albeit with little information about risk factors such as prior invasive treatments of pulpotomy or pulpectomy in their primary dentition. Therefore, the primary objectives of this study were to determine the number of pediatric patients who have had any type of invasive treatment in their primary teeth, to assess their association with any subsequent invasive treatment (root canal therapy, extractions) in their permanent dentition, and to assess these trends over time. This retrospective study utilized summary data from a clinical pediatric patient pool (ages 0-17) over the period of 2013-2022. This analysis revealed that pediatric patients requiring pulpotomies and pulpectomies in primary dentition declined between 2013 (n = 417, n = 156) and 2022 (n = 250, n = 12), while root canal therapy (RCT) in permanent dentition increased six-fold from n = 54 to n = 330. In addition, few (7.8%) patients with RCT had a previous history of pulpotomy or pulpectomy, which suggests that invasive treatments performed in primary dentition have no direct association with the subsequent need for invasive treatments in permanent dentition, although more research is needed to determine the explanations for these observations.

Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Success of 2% Mepivacaine versus 4% Articaine in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis in Mandibular Molars: A Randomized Double-Blind Single-Centre Clinical Trial

AIM

To assess inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) success of 2% mepivacaine (Scandonest 2%, Septodont, France) and 4% articaine (Septanest 4%, Septodont) in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP) in mandibular molars during access cavity preparation and instrumentation.

METHODOLOGY

Three hundred and thirty patients with moderate-to-severe pain in mandibular molars with SIP randomly received either 3.6 mL 2% mepivacaine hydrochloride with 1:100 000 adrenalin or 3.4mL 4% articaine hydrochloride with 1:100 000 adrenalin (n=165). Intraoperative pain (IOP) intensity was assessed during access cavity preparation and canal instrumentation using 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS). Overall success was considered if the patient felt no-to-mild pain without the need of supplemental anaesthesia throughout treatment; the incidence of need for supplemental anaesthesia was also recorded. Data were statistically analyzed using Mann Whitney U and Chi² (χ² ) tests. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of anaesthetic failure was calculated. The effect of predisposing factors on outcome variables was assessed using multivariable regression analyses. None of the participants reported any adverse effects.

RESULTS

Baseline variables were balanced between groups (p>0.05). The IOP intensity during access cavity preparation and canal instrumentation was similar for both groups (p>0.05). IOP intensity was associated with preoperative pain intensity and tooth type (p<0.05). Overall anaesthetic success rate was 35.8% for mepivacaine and 41.2% for articaine (p>0.05) with a relative risk of failure [95%CI] 1.09 [0.92, 1.30]. The need for supplemental anaesthesia occurred 43.6% and 38.2% with mepivacaine and articaine respectively (p>0.05; RR [95%CI]: 1.14 [0.88, 1.48]). Preoperative pain level and age were associated with the need for supplemental anaesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

2% mepivacaine and 4% articaine demonstrate similar IANB success rates for mandibular molars with SIP. Intraoperative pain experience during endodontic treatment can be associated with preoperative pain, tooth type and age.

Translation and Validation of Italian Version of Index of Dental Anxiety and Fear (IDAF-4C+): A Cross-Sectional Study

Dental anxiety (DA) is defined as unreasonable apprehension toward dental procedures. About 4–20% of the worldwide adult population presents DA, with peaks of 30% in the younger population. Managing patients with dental anxiety and fear with a reliable and valid instrument is necessary to understand the multidimensional dimensions of dental fear. This work aimed to validate the Index of Dental Anxiety and Fear (IDAF-4C+) into Italian. Two hundred and eighty dental students attending an Italian university were enrolled. The IDAF-4C+ was translated by experts and a native English translator, blinded to the original version. The Modified Dental Anxiety Scale (MDAS) was used to assess the validity of IDAF-4C+. Spearman correlation coefficients and Exploratory Factorial Analysis (EFA) were used. Reliability was evaluated by Cronbach’s alpha. The reliability of the Italian version of IDAF-4C+ was good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88). Correlation between IDAF-4C+ and MDAS ranged between 0.42 to 0.68. From EFA, one factor explained 58.76% of the common variance. Women showed a higher level of dental fear. The Italian IDAF-4C+ is a valid and reliable tool to assess DA in any clinical context. This instrument allows for a proper understanding and management of DA, and therefore a better patient oral health-related quality of life and compliance with the dentist’s instructions.

Association between dental anxiety and intraoperative pain during root canal treatment: a cross-sectional study

AIM

To investigate whether dental anxiety influences the intraoperative pain felt by patients during root canal treatment.

METHODOLOGY

In a cross-sectional design, 180 patients (90 men and 90 women) were included. Pre-operative anxiety levels were assessed using the short-form Dental Anxiety Inventory (S-DAI). Pain during root canal treatment was evaluated using a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS) that ranked the level of pain between 'Absence of pain' and 'Unbearable pain'. The minimal sample size was determined using the software of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NIH, UK). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify relationships between variables.

RESULTS

Mean pain level during root canal treatment was 2.2 ± 2.1. The mean anxiety S-DAI score was 27.2 ± 12.5. Fifty percent of men had mild anxiety levels, while in 70% of women anxiety was moderate or high (P = 0.017). Anxiety correlated positively with intraoperative pain (R = 0.406). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that anxiety was significantly associated with intraoperative pain felt by patients (OR = 4.0; 95% C.I. = 1.7-9.3; P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Anxious patients were more than twice as likely to feel moderate or intense intraoperative pain during root canal treatment. To know the patient´s degree of anxiety could help the dentist to decide whether to use anxiolytic premedication and/or supplemental local anaesthesia to assure better control of pain during root canal treatment.