BACKGROUND: The purpose of this prospective randomized single-blind clinical trial was to evaluate the effect of tilting the head on the anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. METHODS: Ninety-two patients were divided into two groups: the first group received IANB and the head was tilted in the direction of the block for 15 min, whereas the second group received IANB and the head was tilted to the opposite side. Access cavity preparation was initiated after 15 min. Success was defined as no pain or faint/weak/mild pain during endodontic access preparation and instrumentation. The anesthetic success rates were analyzed by Pearson chi-square test at 5% significance levels. RESULTS: The same side position and opposite side position yielded 41% and 30% anesthetic success rates, respectively; there was no significant difference between the two sides. CONCLUSIONS: Relative head position has no effect on the anesthetic success rate of IANB.
Anesthesia, Local ; Head ; Humans ; Mandibular Nerve ; Nerve Block ; Patient Positioning ; Prospective Studies ; Pulpitis

This systematic review aimed to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the effectiveness of cryotherapy in the reduction of postendodontic pain. The review question was, "What will be the success rate of cryotherapy technique among human patients with postendodontic pain?”. The review protocol was framed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Six studies were included in the review, and quantification of five studies was performed through a meta-analysis. In the forest plot representation of the studies comparing the control and cryotherapy groups in terms of the success rate in the management of postendodontic pain, the combined risk ratio (RR) was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.56 to 1.13) with a P value of 0.20. Based on the quantitative analysis, it can be suggested that intracanal cryotherapy does not play a significant role in reducing postendodontic pain.

Achieving profound anesthesia in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis is a tedious task. This review aimed at evaluating the success of buccal/lingual infiltrations administered with a primary inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) injection or as a supplemental injection after the failure of the primary injection in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with irreversible pulpitis in human mandibular molars. The review question was “What will be the success of primary and supplemental infiltration injection in the endodontic treatment of patients with irreversible pulpitis in human mandibular molars?” We searched electronic databases, including Pubmed, Scopus, and Ebsco host and we did a comprehensive manual search. The review protocol was framed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. We included clinical studies that evaluated and compared the anesthetic outcomes of primary IANB with primary and/or supplementary infiltration injections. Standard evaluation of the included studies was performed and suitable data and inferences were assessed. Twenty-six studies were included, of which 13 were selected for the meta-analysis.In the forest plot representation of the studies evaluating infiltrations, the combined risk ratio (RR) was 1.88 (95% CI: 1.49, 2.37), in favor of the secondary infiltrations with a statistical heterogeneity of 77%. The forest plot analysis for studies comparing primary IANB + infiltration versus primary IANB alone showed a low heterogeneity (0%). The included studies had similar RRs and the combined RR was 1.84 (95% CI: 1.44, 2.34).These findings suggest that supplemental infiltrations given along with a primary IANB provide a better success rate. L’Abbe plots were generated to measure the statistical heterogeneity among the studies. Trial sequential analysis suggested that the number of patients included in the analysis was adequate. Based on the qualitative and quantitative analyses, we concluded that the infiltration technique, either as a primary injection or as a supplementary injection, given after the failure of primary IANB, increases the overall anesthetic efficacy.

Purpose: Use of dual mobility (DM) articulations can reduce the risk of instability in both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Knowledge regarding the impact of this design on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is limited. This study aims to compare clinical outcomes between DM and fixed bearing (FB) prostheses following primary THA. Materials and Methods: All patients who underwent primary THA between 2011-2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were separated into three cohorts: FB vs monoblock-D vs modular-DM. An evaluation of PROMs including HOOS, JR, and FJS-12, as well as discharge-disposition, 90-day readmissions, and revisions rates was performed. Propensity-score matching was performed to limit significant demographic differences, while ANOVA and chi-squared test were used for comparison of outcomes. Results: Of the 15,184 patients identified, 14,652 patients (96.5%) had a FB, 185 patients (1.2%) had a monoblock-DM, and 347 patients (2.3%) had a modular-DM prosthesis. After propensity-score matching, a total of 447 patients were matched comparison. There was no statistical difference in the 90-day readmission (P=0.584), revision rate (P=0.265), and 90-day readmission (P=0.365) and revision rate due to dislocation (P=0.365) between the cohorts. Discharge disposition was also non-significant (P=0.124). There was no statistical difference in FJS-12 scores at 3-months (P=0.820), 1-year (P=0.982), and 2-years (P=0.608) between the groups. Conclusion DM bearings yield PROMs similar to those of FB implants in patients undergoing primary THA.Although DM implants are utilized more often in patients at higher-risk for instability, we suggest that similar patient satisfaction may be attained while achieving similar dislocation rates.

Achieving profound anesthesia in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis is a tedious task. This review aimed at evaluating the success of buccal/lingual infiltrations administered with a primary inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) injection or as a supplemental injection after the failure of the primary injection in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with irreversible pulpitis in human mandibular molars. The review question was “What will be the success of primary and supplemental infiltration injection in the endodontic treatment of patients with irreversible pulpitis in human mandibular molars?” We searched electronic databases, including Pubmed, Scopus, and Ebsco host and we did a comprehensive manual search. The review protocol was framed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. We included clinical studies that evaluated and compared the anesthetic outcomes of primary IANB with primary and/or supplementary infiltration injections. Standard evaluation of the included studies was performed and suitable data and inferences were assessed. Twenty-six studies were included, of which 13 were selected for the meta-analysis.In the forest plot representation of the studies evaluating infiltrations, the combined risk ratio (RR) was 1.88 (95% CI: 1.49, 2.37), in favor of the secondary infiltrations with a statistical heterogeneity of 77%. The forest plot analysis for studies comparing primary IANB + infiltration versus primary IANB alone showed a low heterogeneity (0%). The included studies had similar RRs and the combined RR was 1.84 (95% CI: 1.44, 2.34).These findings suggest that supplemental infiltrations given along with a primary IANB provide a better success rate. L’Abbe plots were generated to measure the statistical heterogeneity among the studies. Trial sequential analysis suggested that the number of patients included in the analysis was adequate. Based on the qualitative and quantitative analyses, we concluded that the infiltration technique, either as a primary injection or as a supplementary injection, given after the failure of primary IANB, increases the overall anesthetic efficacy.

Methods: In a double-blinded setup, 124 patients randomly received either of the following injections: 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine, 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine mixed with 2 mg dexamethasone, or plain 2% lidocaine mixed with 2 mg dexamethasone, which were injected as a primary IANB. Ten minutes after injection, patients with profound lip numbness underwent electric and thermal pulp sensibility tests. Patients who responded positively to the tests were categorized as “failed” anesthesia and received supplemental anesthesia. The remaining patients underwent endodontic treatment using a rubber dam. Anesthetic success was defined as “no pain or faint/weak/mild pain” during endodontic access preparation and instrumentation (HP visual analog scale score < 55 mm). The effect of the anesthetic solutions on the maximum change in heart rate was also evaluated. The Pearson chi-square test at 5% and 1% significance was used to analyze anesthetic success rates. Results: The 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine, 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine mixed with 2 mg dexamethasone, and plain 2% lidocaine mixed with 2 mg dexamethasone groups had anesthetic success rates of 34%, 59%, and 29%, respectively. The addition of dexamethasone resulted in significantly better results (P < 0.001, χ 2 = 9.07, df = 2). Conclusions The addition of dexamethasone to 2% lidocaine with epinephrine, administered as an IANB, can improve the anesthetic success rates during the endodontic management of symptomatic mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis.

Purpose: This systematic review aimed to compare assessments of the healing of periapical endodontic surgery using conventional radiography and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: This review of clinical studies was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. All articles published from 1990 to March 2020 pertaining to clinical and radiographic healing assessments after endodontic surgery using conventional radiography and CBCT were included. The question was “healing assessment of endodontic surgery using cone-beam computed tomography.” The review was conducted by manual searching, as well as undertaking a review of electronic literature databases, including PubMed and Scopus. The studies included compared radiographic and CBCT assessments of periapical healing after periapical endodontic surgery. Results: The initial search retrieved 372 articles. The titles and abstracts of these articles were read, leading to the selection of 73 articles for full-text analysis. After the eligibility criteria were applied, 11 articles were selected for data extraction and qualitative analysis. The majority of studies found that CBCT enabled better assessments of healing than conventional radiography, suggesting higher efficacy of CBCT for correct diagnosis and treatment planning. A risk of bias assessment was done for 10 studies, which fell into the low to moderate risk categories. Conclusion Three-dimensional radiography provides an overall better assessment of healing, which is imperative for correct diagnosis and treatment planning.

Background: This was a randomized controlled clinical trial that aimed to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 2% lidocaine combined with different concentrations of epinephrine (plain, 1:200,000 and 1:80,000) during endodontic treatment of maxillary molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Methods: The trial included 144 adult patients who were randomly allocated to three treatment groups. All patients received buccal-plus-palatal infiltration. After 10 min, pulp sensibility testing was performed using an electric pulp test (EPT). If a tooth responded positively, anesthesia was considered to have failed. In the case of a negative EPT response, endodontic access was initiated under rubber dam isolation. The success of anesthesia was defined as having a pain score less than 55 on the Heft Parker visual analog scale (HP VAS), which was categorized as ‘no pain’ or ‘faint/weak/mild’ pain on the HP VAS. Baseline pre-injection and post-injection maximum heart rates were recorded. The Pearson chi-square test was used to analyze the anesthetic success rates at 5% significance. Results: Plain 2% lidocaine and 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 1:80,000 epinephrine had anesthetic success rates of 18.75%, 72.9%, and 82.3%, respectively. Statistical analysis indicated significant differences between the groups (P < 0.001, χ2 = 47.5, df = 2). The maximum heart rate increase was seen with 2% lidocaine solution with epinephrine. Conclusion Adding epinephrine to 2% lidocaine significantly improves its anesthetic success rates during the root canal treatment of maxillary molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

Background: Inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) is known to have a lower success rate for anesthesia in patients with irreversible pulpitis. This calls for supplementary techniques to effectively anesthetize such patients.This systematic review aimed to evaluate the published literature for determining the success rate of anesthesia induction using post-IANB intraligamentary (IL) injection in the mandibular teeth of patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. The review question was, “What is the success rate of IL injection in the mandibular teeth of patients with irreversible pulpitis as a supplementary technique for endodontic treatment?” Methods: A thorough search of electronic databases and manual searches were performed. The protocol of the review was framed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist and was registered in the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with a proper criterion for inclusion and exclusion of studies. The included studies were analyzed using the Cochrane Collaboration ‘‘Risk of Bias’’ tool. A meta-analysis that included a comparison of primary nerve block and supplemental IL injection was performed. The success rate was evaluated using the combined risk ratio (RR) with a random risk model. A funnel plot was created to measure publication bias. Results: After all analyses, four studies were included. In the forest plot representation, RRs were 3.56 (95% CI: 2.86, 4.44), which were in favor of the supplemental IL injections. Statistical heterogeneity was found to be 0%. These values suggest that supplemental IL injections provide better success rates for anesthesia. Conclusion According to the pooled qualitative and quantitative analyses, supplemental IL injections increased anesthetic efficacy.