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

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.

Efficacy of a Light-cured Tetracaine-based Anesthetic Gel for Rubber Dam Clamp Placement: A Triple-blind Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of a new light-cured anesthetic gel for pain control in adults undergoing rubber dam isolation for the restorative treatment of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This study was a randomized, split-mouth, triple-blind, controlled trial. The sample comprised 50 adults with at least one pair of NCCLs located in the same arch but on opposite sides. Simple randomization defined the tooth to receive the light-cured tetracaine-based anesthetic gel or the placebo gel. After cotton roll isolation, the gels were applied in the gingival tissue around the tooth with the aid of the applicator tip of a syringe, left in place for 15 seconds, and light-cured for 15 seconds. Then, a #212 clamp was positioned on the tooth. If the patient reported pain, the clamp was removed, the patient filled out a pain intensity form (a 0-10 visual analog scale [VAS] and a 0-4 verbal rating scale [VRS]) and an injectable anesthetic was applied before rubber dam isolation for the restorative procedure. The absolute risk, intensity of pain, and need for rescue anesthesia were analyzed by the McNemar test and the Wilcoxon signed rank test (α=5%).

RESULTS

The odds ratio [OR] for pain (OR=3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.1 to 14.6; p=0.03) showed lower reports of pain for the light-cured anesthetic gel. One in five patients will benefit from placement of the light-cured anesthetic gel. On average, pain intensity was one VAS unit lower in those using the light-cured anesthetic gel than in those using the placebo gel. For the VRS, the pain intensity for the light-cured anesthetic gel was 0.4 units lower than the pain intensity for the placebo gel (95% CI=-0.9 to 0.07). The OR for rescue anesthesia was 2.5 (95% CI=0.7 to 10.9; p=0.18).

CONCLUSIONS

The light-cured, tetracaine-based anesthetic gel reduced the absolute risk of pain by 20% in NCCLs.

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.

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.

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.

A new protocol to evaluate the effect of topical anesthesia

This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized cross-over clinical experimental study tested the reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of punctuate pain thresholds and self-reported pain on needle penetration. Female subjects without orofacial pain were tested in 2 sessions at 1- to 2-week intervals. The test site was the mucobuccal fold adjacent to the first upper right premolar. Active lidocaine hydrochloride 2% (Dynexan) or placebo gel was applied for 5 minutes, and sensory testing was performed before and after application. The standardized quantitative sensory test protocol included mechanical pain threshold (MPT), pressure pain threshold (PPT), mechanical pain sensitivity (MPS), and needle penetration sensitivity (NPS) assessments. Twenty-nine subjects, mean (SD) age 29.0 (10.2) years, completed the study. Test-retest reliability intraclass correlation coefficient at 10-minute intervals between examinations was MPT 0.69, PPT 0.79, MPS 0.72, and NPS 0.86. A high correlation was found between NPS and MPS (r = 0.84; P < .001), whereas NPS and PPT were not significantly correlated. The study found good to excellent test-retest reliability for all measures. None of the sensory measures detected changes in sensitivity following lidocaine 2% or placebo gel. Electronic von Frey assessments of MPT/MPS on oral mucosa have good validity.