OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of 1.8 and 3.6 mL of the same anaesthetic solution for IANBs when treating mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis.
METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus and EBSCOhost databases until May 2020. Randomized clinical trials published in English, comparing 1.8 with 3.6 mL of the same anaesthetic solution for IANBs in permanent mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis, were included. The risk of bias of the included trials was appraised using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. A meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. The effect of random errors on the results of the meta-analysis was evaluated by trial sequential analysis and the quality of evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS: Four clinical trials involving 280 teeth from patients with ages ranging from 18 to 65 years were included. Among the four trials, three were categorized as having a 'low' risk of bias and one was categorized as having 'some concerns'. The primary meta-analysis revealed that 3.6 mL of anaesthetic solution when administered for IANBs was associated with significantly greater success rates compared with 1.8 mL (RR = 1.94; 95% CI, 1.07, 3.52; I2 = 77%). Similarly, the results of the sensitivity analysis (restricting trials only to those that used the Heft-Parker visual analogue pain scale) revealed that the use of 3.6 mL significantly increased the success of IANBs compared with 1.8 mL. The trial sequential analysis confirmed the evidence for the beneficial effect of 3.6 mL to achieve success for IANBs was 'conclusive'. The quality of evidence was graded as 'high'.
CONCLUSION: Increasing the volume of anaesthetic solution from 1.8 to 3.6 mL improved the success rate for IANBs in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis. The quality of the evidence was 'high'. Future high-quality clinical trials are required with different types of anaesthetic solutions and other types of teeth.
METHODS: A sample of 158 preschool children with ECC awaiting dental treatment under GA was recruited over an 8-month period. Parents self-completed the Malay-ECOHIS before and 4 weeks after their child's dental treatment. At 4 weeks follow-up, parents also responded to a global health transition judgement item. Data were analysed using independent and paired samples t tests, ANOVA and Pearson correlation coefficients.
RESULTS: The response rate was 87.3%. The final sample comprised 76 male (55.1%) and 62 female (44.9%) preschool children with mean age of 4.5 (SD = 1.0) years. Following treatment, there were significant reductions in mean scores for total Malay-ECOHIS, child impact section (CIS), family impact section (FIS) and all domains, respectively (P
METHODS:: Eighty-six patients scheduled for trigger finger release between July 2016 and December 2017 were randomized into a control group (1% lignocaine and 8.4% sodium bicarbonate with arm tourniquet; given 10 min prior to procedure) and an intervention group (1% lignocaine, 1:100,000 of adrenaline and 8.4% sodium bicarbonate; given 30 min prior to procedure), with a total of 4 ml of solution injected around the A1 pulley. The onset of anesthesia and pain score upon injection of the first 1 ml were recorded. After the procedure, the surgeon rated for the hemostasis score (1-10: 1 as no bleeding and 10 being profuse bleeding). Duration of surgery and return of sensation were recorded.
RESULTS:: Hemostasis score was grouped into visibility score as 1-3: good, 4-6: moderate, and 7-10: poor. The intervention group (with adrenaline) had a 74% of good surgical field visibility compared to 44% from the controlled group (without adrenaline; p < 0.05). Duration of anesthesia was longer in the intervention group (with adrenaline), with a 2.77-h difference.
CONCLUSION:: WALANT provides excellent surgical field visibility and is safe and on par with conventional methods but without the usage of a tourniquet and its associated discomfort.
METHODS: Forty-seven participants were recruited via convenient sampling during a RA workshop for novice practitioners. They were divided into the N or B group and then crossover to experience using both Blue Phantom and NeedleTrainer model. Time-to-reach-target, first-pass success rate, and complication rate were assessed, while the learning and confidence scores were rated using six-item and three-item questionnaires, respectively, via a 5-point Likert scale.
RESULTS: Blue Phantom model has a longer time-to-target as compared to the NeedleTrainer model (16 ± 8 vs 8 ± 3 s, p