BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the pain perception and anesthetic efficacy of 2% lignocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, buffered lignocaine, and 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine for the inferior alveolar nerve block. METHODS: This was a double-blind crossover study involving 48 children aged 5–10 years, who received three inferior alveolar nerve block injections in three appointments scheduled one week apart from the next. Pain on injection was assessed using the Wong-Baker Faces pain scale and the sound eye motor scale (SEM). Efficacy of anesthesia was assessed by subjective (tingling or numbness of the lip, tongue, and corner of mouth) and objective signs (pain on probing). RESULTS: Pain perception on injection assessed with Wong-Baker scale was significantly different between buffered lignocaine and lignocaine (P < 0.001) and between buffered lignocaine and articaine (P = 0.041). The onset of anesthesia was lowest for buffered lignocaine, with a statistically significant difference between buffered lignocaine and lignocaine (P < 0.001). Moreover, the efficacy of local analgesia assessed using objective signs was significantly different between buffered lignocaine and lignocaine (P < 0.001) and between lignocaine and articaine. CONCLUSION: Buffered lignocaine was the least painful and the most efficacious anesthetic agent during the inferior alveolar nerve block injection in 5–10-year-old patients.
Analgesia ; Anesthesia ; Appointments and Schedules ; Buffers ; Carticaine ; Child ; Cross-Over Studies ; Epinephrine ; Humans ; Hypesthesia ; Lidocaine ; Lip ; Mandibular Nerve ; Pain Perception ; Tongue

Background: Dental treatment is challenging for children experiencing pain and anxiety. Effective administration of local anesthesia (LA) is crucial for most pediatric dentistry treatments. Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy has emerged primarily to manage post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a wide variety of anxiety- and pain-related conditions. However, the use of this therapy to manage pain in pediatric dentistry has not yet been reported. This study aimed to assess the trends in pain in pediatric dental patients with and without EMDR therapy during LA and extraction. The need for analgesic consumption within 24 h post extraction and the overall dental experience were also evaluated. Methods: Sixty children aged 8-12 years participated in a randomized controlled clinical trial with the goal of extracting the primary mandibular first or second molar on the right or left side and were stratified into: group I: EMDR therapy; group II: Tender Love and Care. Pain was measured at three different time intervals. An unpaired t-test was performed for intergroup comparison of continuous data, and the repeated measures ANOVA was applied for intergroup comparison between the groups. Results: Pain was significantly lower in group I (pain after topical LA gel application, P = 0.229; pain after LA administration, P = 0.036; pain after extraction, P < 0.001). The need for analgesic consumption was lower in this group (P = 0.072), and the overall dental experience was rated better (P < 0.0001). Conclusion Research has shown that EMDR therapy effectively reduces pain in children, making it a recommended practice for pediatric dentists trained in this technique.

Background: Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy has been reported to be very efficacious for treating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other anxiety-related conditions. However, a review of the literature reveals the sparse use of this therapy in the field of pediatric dentistry. This study aimed to evaluate anxiety trends in pediatric dental patients during local anesthesia and extraction with and without EMDR therapy. Methods: Children in the age range of 8–12 years who required dental extractions were assigned randomly into two groups: an EMDR group (group 1) and a routine behavior management therapy group (group 2;receiving more traditional interventions such as tender love and care behavioral modeling, and distraction). Anxiety scores were recorded at four levels using the visual facial anxiety scale (VFAS) preoperatively, after therapy, after the administration of local anesthesia (LA), and after extraction. Results: Reduced anxiety was observed after the delivery of EMDR therapy, after LA administration, and post-extraction in the EMDR group compared to pre-operative anxiety scores of anxiety (P < 0.001; unpaired Student’s t and Mann-Whitney U tests). In the control group, mild reductions in anxiety after routine behavior management therapy were observed, accompanied by spikes in anxiety levels after LA and extractions. Conclusion EMDR therapy was found to be valuable for reducing anxiety among pediatric dental patients during tooth extraction procedures.

Background: This study assessed anticipatory dental anxiety levels among 8- to 12-year-old children based on subjective and physiological measures and their correlation. The variations in anxiety based on sex, age, temperament, and academic performance were evaluated. Methods: An observational study was conducted in 60 children recruited from the waiting room over a 6-month period. The operator recorded subjective anxiety in the children using a novel visual facial anxiety scale. The operator also noted the demographic details and child’s temperament using the nine dimensions of the Thomas and Chess criteria, and graded children as “easy,” “slow to warm-up,” and “difficult.” The academic performance of the children was graded (parental ratings) on a five-point Likert scale. Physiological variables (heartrate [HR], oxygen saturation[SpO2 ], and blood pressure [BP]) were recorded by another evaluator. The correlation between anxiety levels and physiological variables was also assessed. The effects of age, sex, temperament, and academic performance on anxiety were evaluated. Results: The study included 60 children aged 8–12 years, including 36 boys and 24 girls. Seventy percent of children had mild to moderate levels of pre-extraction anxiety, while 30% of children demonstrated high anxiety.A significant positive correlation was noted between anxiety levels and HR (rs = 0.477, P < 0.001*) and systolic BP (rs = 0.294, P < 0.05), while a significant but inverse correlation was observed with SpO2 (rs = −0.40, P < 0.05). Anxiety did not influence diastolic BP. Children with difficult temperament and poor academic performance had significantly higher anxiety. Conclusion A high percentage (70%) of children aged 8–12 years had mild to moderate anxiety prior to the extraction procedure. Increased HR, systolic BP, and reduced SpO2 were significantly associated with high levels of anticipatory dental anxiety. Pre-extraction anxiety was significantly related to the temperament and scholastic performance.

Background: Dental treatment is challenging for children experiencing pain and anxiety. Effective administration of local anesthesia (LA) is crucial for most pediatric dentistry treatments. Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy has emerged primarily to manage post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a wide variety of anxiety- and pain-related conditions. However, the use of this therapy to manage pain in pediatric dentistry has not yet been reported. This study aimed to assess the trends in pain in pediatric dental patients with and without EMDR therapy during LA and extraction. The need for analgesic consumption within 24 h post extraction and the overall dental experience were also evaluated. Methods: Sixty children aged 8-12 years participated in a randomized controlled clinical trial with the goal of extracting the primary mandibular first or second molar on the right or left side and were stratified into: group I: EMDR therapy; group II: Tender Love and Care. Pain was measured at three different time intervals. An unpaired t-test was performed for intergroup comparison of continuous data, and the repeated measures ANOVA was applied for intergroup comparison between the groups. Results: Pain was significantly lower in group I (pain after topical LA gel application, P = 0.229; pain after LA administration, P = 0.036; pain after extraction, P < 0.001). The need for analgesic consumption was lower in this group (P = 0.072), and the overall dental experience was rated better (P < 0.0001). Conclusion Research has shown that EMDR therapy effectively reduces pain in children, making it a recommended practice for pediatric dentists trained in this technique.

Background: Dental treatment is challenging for children experiencing pain and anxiety. Effective administration of local anesthesia (LA) is crucial for most pediatric dentistry treatments. Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy has emerged primarily to manage post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a wide variety of anxiety- and pain-related conditions. However, the use of this therapy to manage pain in pediatric dentistry has not yet been reported. This study aimed to assess the trends in pain in pediatric dental patients with and without EMDR therapy during LA and extraction. The need for analgesic consumption within 24 h post extraction and the overall dental experience were also evaluated. Methods: Sixty children aged 8-12 years participated in a randomized controlled clinical trial with the goal of extracting the primary mandibular first or second molar on the right or left side and were stratified into: group I: EMDR therapy; group II: Tender Love and Care. Pain was measured at three different time intervals. An unpaired t-test was performed for intergroup comparison of continuous data, and the repeated measures ANOVA was applied for intergroup comparison between the groups. Results: Pain was significantly lower in group I (pain after topical LA gel application, P = 0.229; pain after LA administration, P = 0.036; pain after extraction, P < 0.001). The need for analgesic consumption was lower in this group (P = 0.072), and the overall dental experience was rated better (P < 0.0001). Conclusion Research has shown that EMDR therapy effectively reduces pain in children, making it a recommended practice for pediatric dentists trained in this technique.

Background: Dental treatment is challenging for children experiencing pain and anxiety. Effective administration of local anesthesia (LA) is crucial for most pediatric dentistry treatments. Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy has emerged primarily to manage post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a wide variety of anxiety- and pain-related conditions. However, the use of this therapy to manage pain in pediatric dentistry has not yet been reported. This study aimed to assess the trends in pain in pediatric dental patients with and without EMDR therapy during LA and extraction. The need for analgesic consumption within 24 h post extraction and the overall dental experience were also evaluated. Methods: Sixty children aged 8-12 years participated in a randomized controlled clinical trial with the goal of extracting the primary mandibular first or second molar on the right or left side and were stratified into: group I: EMDR therapy; group II: Tender Love and Care. Pain was measured at three different time intervals. An unpaired t-test was performed for intergroup comparison of continuous data, and the repeated measures ANOVA was applied for intergroup comparison between the groups. Results: Pain was significantly lower in group I (pain after topical LA gel application, P = 0.229; pain after LA administration, P = 0.036; pain after extraction, P < 0.001). The need for analgesic consumption was lower in this group (P = 0.072), and the overall dental experience was rated better (P < 0.0001). Conclusion Research has shown that EMDR therapy effectively reduces pain in children, making it a recommended practice for pediatric dentists trained in this technique.

Background/Aims: Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) represents the most common hepatobiliary extraintestinal manifestation of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD). Limited data exist on PSC in patients with IBD from India. We aimed to assess the prevalence and disease spectrum of PSC in Indian patients with IBD. Methods: Database of IBD patients at 5 tertiary care IBD centers in India were analyzed retrospectively. Data were extracted and the prevalence of PSC-IBD was calculated. Results: Forty-eight patients out of 12,216 patients with IBD (9,231 UC, 2,939 CD, and 46 IBD unclassified) were identified to have PSC, resulting in a prevalence of 0.39%. The UC to CD ratio was 7:1. Male sex and pancolitis (UC) or colonic CD were more commonly associated with PSC-IBD. The diagnosis of IBD preceded the diagnosis of PSC in most of the patients. Majority of the patients were symptomatic for liver disease at diagnosis. Eight patients (16.66%) developed cirrhosis, 5 patients (10.41%), all UC, developed malignancies (3 colorectal cancer [6.25%] and 2 cholangiocarcinoma [4.16%]), and 3 patients died (2 decompensated liver disease [4.16%] and 1 cholangiocarcinoma [2.08%]) on follow-up. None of the patients mandated surgical therapy for IBD. Conclusions Concomitant PSC in patients with IBD is uncommon in India and is associated with lower rates of development of malignancies.