Anesthetic efficacy of a combination of 0.9 M mannitol plus 68.8 mg of lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve blocks: a prospective randomized, single blind study

Mannitol Reduces Pain and Trismus After Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Surgery

BACKGROUND

The removal of the lower third molar is a routine procedure in oral surgery, yet it often leads to postoperative side effects, particularly inflammation. Despite various interventions explored in prior studies, there is still a need for effective strategies, such as anti-inflammatory substances, to address postoperative side effects.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to answer the following clinical question: Does the local injection of 0.9 M mannitol reduce postoperative pain, trismus, and swelling in patients undergoing bilateral symmetrically impacted mandibular third molar extraction?

STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE

This prospective, single-blind, split-mouth study at Hamadan Dental School involved 30 patients with bilateral symmetrically impacted mandibular third molars. Inclusion criteria were: no current medication, no anesthesia allergies, bilateral symmetrically impacted mandibular third molars, non-smokers, and the absence of systemic diseases. Exclusion criteria were: poor oral hygiene, alcohol/cigarette use, drug consumption, diabetes, systemic/gastrointestinal disorders, infection at the surgical site, lack of patient cooperation, and mannitol/anesthetic allergy.

PREDICTOR/EXPOSURE/INDEPENDENT VARIABLE

The predictor variable was therapeutic injection, and it was grouped into two categories, 0.9 M mannitol solution or distilled water.

MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE

The primary outcome variable was pain. Secondary outcomes are trismus, swelling, patient satisfaction, and analgesic consumption.

COVARIATES

Covariates included demographic information and operative details.

ANALYSES

Statistical analyses included repeated measures and paired t-tests with a significance level set at P < .05.

RESULTS

The study comprised 30 participants (mean age: 22.6 ± 3.59 years; 6 men, 24 women). In the test group, pain intensity significantly decreased from 5.30 on surgery day to 0.00, with subsequent values of 2.97, 1.30, 0.40, 0.17, and 0.03. The control group also decreased from 7.68 to 0.00, with values of 4.73, 2.67, 0.97, 0.23, and 0.07. The difference was statistically significant (P < .001). No significant swelling differences at T1, T3, T5, and T7 (P > .05). The intervention group had improved maximum mouth opening at T1, T3, T5, and T7 (P = .011) compared to the control group.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Mannitol infiltration significantly reduces postoperative pain and trismus in impacted third molar surgery. This finding underscores the potential for improved patient comfort and recovery in this context.

Mannitol Enhances the Antinociceptive Effects of Diphenhydramine as an Alternative Local Anesthetic

Mannitol has recently been reported to be effective in enhancing the antinociceptive efficacy of lidocaine. No single study to date, however, has compared diphenhydramine with and without mannitol for nociceptive processing as an alternative local anesthetic. In this study, we examined the antinociceptive efficacy enhancements of diphenhydramine when combined with mannitol. Male Sprague-Dawley rats weighing 230–260 g were used in a hot plate test to evaluate the antinociceptive effects of diphenhydramine. All chemicals were dissolved in isotonic normal saline and administered subcutaneously into the plantar surface of the right hind paw at 10 min before the hot plate test. A subcutaneous injection of 0.5% or 1% diphenhydramine produced significant inhibition of the withdrawal latency time compared with the vehicle treatment. Antinociceptive effects appeared 10 min after the diphenhydramine injections and persisted for over 30 min. The antinociceptive effects of 1% diphenhydramine were not statistically different from those of 1% lidocaine. Although a subcutaneous injection of a 0.5 M mannitol solution alone did not affect the withdrawal latency time, 1% diphenhydramine with 0.5 M mannitol significantly enhanced antinociception. A subcutaneous injection of 1% diphenhydramine with epinephrine (1 : 100,000) solution did not increase the antinociceptive effect of the diphenhydramine. These results suggest that diphenhydramine with mannitol can be used as an alternative local anesthetic.

Role of 0.5 M mannitol as an adjuvant with lidocaine with or without epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve block: A randomized control trial

Background

The most commonly used local anesthetic in dentistry is lidocaine. For decades, mannitol is the most widely used agent in the management of raised intracranial pressure and as prophylaxis against acute renal failure surgeries.

Material and Methods

120 patients were randomly divided into four groups, 30 patients in each group. Group A was administered 2% lidocaine with 1:80000 epinephrine; group B, 2% lidocaine with 1:80000 epinephrine and 0.5 M mannitol; group C, 2% lidocaine and 0.5 M mannitol; and group D (control group), 2% lidocaine for achieving local anesthesia. Extraction of lower erupted tooth was done under inferior alveolar nerve block. Parameters taken were onset of anesthesia, duration of anesthesia and pain. Heft-Parker visual analogue scale was taken to evaluate the pain response during procedure after every 10 minutes until complete return of sensation by probing. The Chi-square test was used to compare the pain among the groups. The continuous variables were compared among the groups by one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s post-hoc comparison tests. The p-value <0.05 was considered significant.

Results

The onset of tingling sensation was higher among the patients of group C (1.53±0.57) than group B (1.50±0.58), group D (1.48±0.51) and group A (1.45±0.62) but difference among the groups was statistically insignificant (p >0.05). The total time in return of sensation was higher among the patients of group C (70.30±4.34) than group A (65.94±3.45), group B (62.23±7.47) and group D (47.70±8.04) but difference among the groups was found to be statistically significant (p=0.0001). There was no significant (p >0.05) difference in the pain at baseline and at start. No pain was found among all the patients from 10 minutes to subsequent time intervals.

Conclusions

Mannitol was effective in increasing the efficacy of lidocaine as an adjuvant to local anesthetic solution in inferior alveolar nerve block.

Key words:Inferior alveolar nerve block, lidocaine, local anesthesia, mannitol.

Efficacy of dental local anesthetics: A review

The objective of this review was to investigate the efficacy of dental local anesthetics, as it is well known among clinicians that local anesthesia may be challenging in some circumstances. Therefore, the focus of this review was on the efficacy of the products used in dental local anesthesia.

In a Pubmed database literature search conducted, a total of 8646 articles were found to be related to dental local anesthetics. After having applied the inclusion criteria (human research, performed in the last 10 years, written in English language, and focus on dental local anesthetics) and having assessed the quality of the papers, 30 were deemed eligible for inclusion in this review.

The conclusion of this review is that none of the dental local anesthetic amides provide 100% anesthesia. The problem appears to be more pronounced when mandibular teeth are attempted to be anaesthetized and especially if there is irreversible pulpitis involved. The authors conclude that this finding suggest exploration of more efficient techniques to administer dental local anesthesia, especially in the mandible, to establish a 100% efficacy, is needed.

Effects of different bronchoalveolar lavage methods on tracheobronchial foreign body patients

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To compare the different effects of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) with diverse combinations of lidocaine, epinephrine, and dexamethasone on pediatric patients with an inhaled tracheobronchial foreign body (TFB).

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled study.

METHODS

Two hundred forty cases of pediatric patients with inhaled TFB were included in this study, and were randomly divided into four groups using three kinds of drugs for BAL, namely 0.9% saline (S) group, 2% lidocaine with diluted epinephrine (LE) group, 2% lidocaine with diluted epinephrine and 0.5% dexamethasone (LED), control group (C) without BAL. The incidences of intraoperative or postoperative complications and recovery periods were compared. Meanwhile, the concentrations of interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α in BAL fluids and plasma were evaluated by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

RESULTS

The incidences of bronchospasm, hypoxemia, and postoperative fever were significantly lower in the LED group than other groups (P < .001). Fever after the TFB removal procedure appeared later in the LED group than the other groups. The improvement and healing periods in the LE and LED groups were significantly shorter than those in the C and S groups (P < .001). The concentrations of IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α in BAL fluids were significantly higher in the LE and LED groups than those in the S group (P < .001), but those in the plasma of the C and S groups were lower compared with the LE and LED groups (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

BAL with lidocaine, epinephrine, and dexamethasone could promote recovery for TFB patients and reduce incidences of complications, possibly by regulating release of proinflammatory cytokines.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1b.

Anesthetic efficacy of a combination of 0.5 M mannitol plus 36.8 mg of lidocaine with 18.4 μg epinephrine in maxillary infiltration: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blind study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of lidocaine with epinephrine compared to lidocaine with epinephrine plus 0.5 M mannitol in maxillary lateral incisor infiltrations. Forty-one subjects randomly received 2 maxillary lateral infiltrations consisting of a 1.84-mL solution of 36.8 mg lidocaine with 18.4 μg epinephrine (control solution) and a 2.90-mL solution of 36.8 mg lidocaine with 18.4 μg epinephrine (1.84 mL) plus 0.5 M mannitol (1.06 mL) in 2 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. The maxillary lateral incisor was blindly electric pulp-tested in 2-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. No response from the subject to the maximum output (a reading of 80) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Total percent pulpal anesthesia was defined as the total of all pulpal anesthesia readings (at output of 80) over the 60-minute test period. Pain during solution deposition and postoperative pain were also measured. The results demonstrated that a 2.90-mL solution of 36.8 mg lidocaine with 18.4 μg epinephrine (1.84 mL) plus 0.5 M mannitol (1.06 mL) was not statistically significantly superior to a 1.84-mL solution of 36.8 mg lidocaine with 18.4 μg epinephrine. The pain of solution deposition was lower with the lidocaine/mannitol formulation. Postoperative pain was not statistically significantly different between the lidocaine/mannitol formulation and the lidocaine formulation without mannitol. We concluded that adding 0.5 M mannitol to a lidocaine with epinephrine formulation was not significantly more effective in achieving a greater percentage of total pulpal anesthesia (as defined in this study) than a lidocaine formulation without mannitol in the maxillary lateral incisor.