Background: The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of warmed and unwarmed local anesthesia solutions in reduction of pain during intraoral injection administration. Methods: PubMed, Ovid SP, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from publication years 1990 to 2020 with relevant MeSH terms. Studies were screened by titles and abstracts, followed by full-texts evaluation of the included studies. Results: A total of four studies were included in the systematic review. Outcomes evaluated were subjective and objective pain during administration of the warmed local anesthesia solution in comparison with the unwarmed local anesthesia solution. Among the four studies that evaluated the self-reported pain score, three studies showed significantly lower pain scores associated with warmed local anesthesia. Only two studies evaluated the observed pain score, and both of them reported a significantly lower pain reaction with the warmed local anesthesia solution. Conclusion Within the limits of this systematic review, warming the local anesthesia solution to body temperature (37°C) before administration seemed to reduce the discomfort during intraoral local anaesthesia administration, and more high-quality studies should be carried out to validate the same.

This systematic review aims to determine if a single buccal infiltration (without palatal infiltration in the maxilla and Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in the mandible) with 4% articaine can induce adequate analgesia for the extraction of primary molars (Maxillary and Mandibular) in children. PubMed, Ovid SP, and Embase were searched for studies published between January 1990 and March 2020 with the relevant MeSH terms. Titles and abstracts were screened preliminarily, followed by the full-texts of the included studies. Five articles were included for this systematic review. The outcome investigated was “Procedural pain during the extraction of primary molars after injection with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine in comparison to single buccal infiltration, double infiltration (buccal and palatal/lingual), and inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% lignocaine.” Of the five studies that evaluated subjective pain during extraction, two reported no significant difference between the articaine and lignocaine groups, and the remaining three reported lower subjective pain during extraction in the articaine group. Only two studies evaluated objective pain scores during extraction, and both studies reported lower pain scores in the articaine group. There is insufficient evidence to justify the statement that a single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine alone is sufficient for the extraction of primary molars. Further evidence is required to justify the claim that palatal infiltrations and IANB can be replaced with the use of 4% articaine single buccal infiltration for the extraction of primary molars in children.

Background: To evaluate the effectiveness of vibration as a counter-stimulatory measure in reducing subjective pain due to local anesthesia administration in children. Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, Ovid SP, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched until April 2020. Studies were screened by titles and abstracts, followed by full text evaluation of the included studies. Results: A total of seven studies involving 376 children aged 5-17 years were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The meta-analysis compared vibration as a counter-stimulatory measure with no vibration as a comparator. The primary outcome evaluated was pain perception or subjective pain reported by the child.The secondary outcome evaluated was objective pain evaluated in each study. The pooled mean difference favored vibration to be effective for the first outcome. Conclusion Within the limits of this systematic review, low quality evidence suggests that vibration as a counter-stimulatory measure is effective in reducing the subjective pain reported by children during local anesthesia administration.

This study was conducted to determine how precooling reduces the subjective reported pain and objective pain and to evaluate the effectiveness of precooling the injection site before administration of local anesthesia in children. Electronic databases (PubMed, Ovid SP, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for publications from 1980 to 2020. Studies were screened for titles and abstracts, followed by full-text evaluation of included reports. Six studies were included in this systematic review. The primary outcome evaluated was the pain perception or the subjective pain reported by the child receiving the injection. The secondary outcome evaluated was objective pain evaluated in each study. Among 5 studies that evaluated child reported pain scores on a visual analogue scale (VAS), 4 studies reported lower scores in the precooling group and one study reported a higher VAS score in the precooling group than in children treated with 20% benzocaine topical anesthesia. Among 6 studies that evaluated the pain reaction of children by Sound Eye Motor (SEM) score, 4 studies reported a lower SEM score in the precooling group, one study reported no significant difference between the precooling and control groups, and one study reported higher SEM scores in the precooling group than in children treated with 20% benzocaine topical anesthesia. Within the limits of this systematic review, evidence suggests that precooling the injection site with ice can be an effective adjunct to topical anesthesia in reducing both subjective and objective pain during local anesthesia administration in children.

Background: The present study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of buffered and unbuffered local anesthesia solutions during inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) administration in children. Methods: PubMed, Ovid SP, and Cochrane databases were searched separately by two independent reviewers for potential papers published between 1980 and April 2020 using relevant MeSH terms and pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. T Studies of IANB administration in children comparing buffered and unbuffered local anesthesia solutions were evaluated. The primary outcome evaluated was pain (perception and reaction), while the secondary outcome was the onset of anesthesia. Results: A total of five articles were included in a qualitative analysis; among them, four qualified for quantitative analysis of the primary outcome and three for quantitative analysis of the secondary outcome. A fixed-effects model was used to perform the meta-analysis.Pain perception (child-reported pain): Significantly lower pain scores were reported with buffered local anesthesia solution than with unbuffered solution (P = 0.006, MD: -0.32, 95% CI: -0.55 to -0.09).Pain reaction (observer-reported pain reaction in child): No significant difference was found between buffered and unbuffered solution in terms of observer-reported pain behavior in the child (P = 0.09, MD: -0.21, 95% CI: -0.46 to 0.04).Onset of anesthesia: A significantly lower duration of anesthesia onset was reported with buffered local anesthesia solution than with unbuffered solution (P = 0.00001, MD: -12.38, 95% CI: -17.64 to -7.13]. Conclusion Buffering local anesthesia solution may reduce discomfort due to IANB injection administration and lower the initial onset time of anesthesia. More randomized control trials with adequate sample sizes should be carried out to validate the accuracy of these results.

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the pre-emptive analgesic efficacy of injected ketorolac to that of other agents for impacted third molar surgical removal in a healthy population.PubMed, Ovid SP, Cochrane databases were filtered from 1980 to July 2020 for potential papers using relevant MeSH terms and pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria independently by reviewers. Studies that compared pre-emptive intramuscular or intravenous administration of ketorolac to other agents were evaluated. The outcomes sought were self-reported postoperative pain (patient-perceived pain), median duration for rescue analgesic medication, total number of analgesics consumed in the recovery period, and global assessment (overall patient satisfaction) after the recovery period.Six studies were included in the final evaluation. The outcome of pain perception and the number of analgesics taken were significantly lower in the ketorolac group (intramuscular or intravenous) in most of the studies (n=5) than in the group of other drugs. The mean time for rescue analgesia intake was higher for the ketorolac group, and global assessment scores were also better in the ketorolac group.Although the included studies show significantly better outcomes such as postoperative pain, median time taken for rescue medication, total number of analgesics taken, and overall patient satisfaction with injected ketorolac group in comparison to injected diclofenac, dexamethasone, and tramadol, definitive conclusions cannot be made regarding the superiority of injected Ketorolac as a pre-emptive agent. A greater number of randomized control trials with a proper protocol are needed to make definitive conclusions.