Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine

The Korean Dental Society of Anesthsiology (대한치과마취과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Efficacy of intraosseous saline injection for pain management during surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars: a randomized double-blinded clinical trial

  • Jawahar Babu. S (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research) ;
  • Naveen Kumar Jayakumar (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research) ;
  • Pearlcid Siroraj (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research)
  • Received : 2023.01.11
  • Accepted : 2023.04.26
  • Published : 2023.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars is the most common procedure performed by oral surgeons. The procedure cannot be performed effectively without achieving profound anesthesia. During this procedure, patients may feel pain during surgical bone removal (at the cancellous level) or during splitting and luxation of the tooth, despite administration of routine nerve blocks. Administration of intraosseous (IO) lignocaine injections during third molar surgeries to provide effective anesthesia for pain alleviation has been documented. However, whether the anesthetic effect of lignocaine is the only reason for pain alleviation when administered intraosseously remains unclear. This conundrum motivated us to assess the efficacy of IO normal saline versus lignocaine injections during surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of IO normal saline as a viable alternative or adjunct to lignocaine for alleviation of intraoperative pain during surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, interventional study included 160 patients who underwent surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars and experienced pain during surgical removal of the buccal bone or sectioning and luxation of the tooth. The participants were divided into two groups: the study group, which included patients who would receive IO saline injections, and the control group, which included patients who would receive IO lignocaine injections. Patients were asked to complete a visual analog pain scale (VAPS) at baseline and after receiving the IO injections. Results: Of the 160 patients included in this study, 80 received IO lignocaine (control group), whereas 80 received IO saline (study group) following randomization. The baseline VAPS score of the patients and controls was 5.71 ± 1.33 and 5.68 ± 1.21, respectively. The difference between the baseline VAPS scores of the two groups was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The difference between the numbers of patients who experienced pain relief following administration of IO lignocaine (n=74) versus saline (n=69) was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The difference between VAPS scores measured after IO injection in both groups was not statistically significant (P >0.05) (1.05 ± 1.20 for the control group vs. 1.72 ± 1.56 for the study group) Conclusion: The study demonstrates that IO injection of normal saline is as effective as lignocaine in alleviating pain during surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars and can be used as an effective adjunct to conventional lignocaine injection.

Keywords

References

  1. Brennan F, Carr DB, Cousins M. Pain management: a fundamental human right. Anesth Analg 2007; 105: 205-21. https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ane.0000268145.52345.55
  2. Khoury J, Townsend G. Neural blockade anaesthesia of the mandibular nerve and its terminal branches: rationale for different anaesthetic techniques including their advantages and disadvantages. Anesthesiol Res Pract 2011; 2011: 307423.
  3. Meechan JG. How to overcome failed local anaesthesia. Br Dent J 1999; 186: 15-20. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4800006a
  4. Khalil H. A basic review on the inferior alveolar nerve block techniques. Anesth Essays Res 2014; 8: 3-8. https://doi.org/10.4103/0259-1162.128891
  5. Leonard MS. The efficacy of an intraosseous injection system of delivering local anesthetic. J Am Dent Assoc 1995; 126: 81-6. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1995.0027
  6. Kahl C, Cleland JA. Visual analogue scale, numeric pain rating scale and the McGill pain Questionnaire: an overview of psychometric properties, Phys Ther Rev 2005: 10:2: 123-8. https://doi.org/10.1179/108331905X55776
  7. Oulis CJ, Vadiakas GP, Vasilopoulou A. The effectiveness of mandibular infiltration compared to mandibular block anesthesia in treating primary molars in children. Pediatr Dent 1996; 18: 301-5.
  8. Sharaf AA. Evaluation of mandibular infiltration versus block anesthesia in pediatric dentistry. ASDC J Dent Child 1997; 64: 276-81.
  9. Hannan L, Reader A, Nist R, Beck M, Meyers WJ. The use of ultrasound for guiding needle placement for inferior alveolar nerve blocks. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999; 87: 658-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(99)70156-3
  10. Berns JM, Sadove MS. Mandibular block injection: a method of study using. an injected radiopaque material. J Am Dent Assoc 1962; 65: 735-45.
  11. Galbreath JC. Tracing the course of the mandibular block injection. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1970; 30: 571-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(70)90176-3
  12. Reader A, American association of Endodontics: Taking the pain out of restorative dentistry and endodontics: current thoughts and treatment options to help patients achieve. profound anasethesia, Endodontics: Colleagues for excellence. Winter 2009
  13. Delong R.H: Local anesthetics, St Louis,1994, pp110-111.
  14. Strichartz G. Molecular mechanisms of nerve block by local anesthetics. Anesthesiology 1976; 45: 421-41. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-197610000-00012
  15. Gow-Gates GA. Mandibular conduction anesthesia: a new technique using extraoral landmarks. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1973; 36: 321-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(73)90208-9
  16. Akinosi JO. A new approach to the mandibular nerve block. Br J Oral Surg 1977; 15: 83-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-117X(77)90011-7
  17. Malamed SF. The periodontal ligament (PDL) injection: an alternative to inferior alveolar nerve block. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1982; 53: 117-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(82)90273-0
  18. Coggins R, Reader A, Nist R, Beck M, Meyers WJ. Anesthetic efficacy of the intraosseous injection in maxillary and mandibular teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1996; 81: 634-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(96)80067-9
  19. Whitcomb M, Drum M, Reader A, Nusstein J, Beck M. A prospective, randomized, double-blind study of the anesthetic efficacy of sodium bicarbonate buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve blocks. Anesth Prog 2010; 57: 59-66. https://doi.org/10.2344/0003-3006-57.2.59
  20. Malamed SF. Local anaesthetic considerations in dental specialty. In: Handbook of local anesthesia. 6th ed. St Louis, Elsevier Inc. 2004.
  21. Derry S, Straube S, Moore RA, Hancock H, Collins SL. Intracutaneous or subcutaneous sterile water injection compared with blinded controls for pain management in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 18; 1: CD009107.
  22. Faied SM, Abdalla AM, Youssef AYM. Intradermal sterile water injection versus epidural bupivacaine in painless first stage of labor. Egypt J Hosp Med 2019; 77: 5589-96. https://doi.org/10.21608/ejhm.2019.61470
  23. Bar-Or D, Rael LT, Brody EN. Use of saline as a placebo in intra-articular injections in osteoarthritis: potential contributions to nociceptive pain relief. Open Rheumatol J 2017; 31: 11: 16-22. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874312901711010016
  24. Altman RD, Devji T, Bhandari M, Fierlinger A, Niazi F, Christensen R. Clinical benefit of intra-articular saline as a comparator in clinical trials of knee osteoarthritis treatments: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2016; 46: 151-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2016.04.003
  25. Kongsagul S, Vitoonpong T, Kitisomprayoonkul W, Tantisiriwat N. Ultrasound-guided physiological saline injection for patients with myofascial pain. J Med Ultrasound 2019; 28: 99-103.