Influence of intra-pocket anesthesia gel on treatment outcome in periodontal patients: a randomized controlled trial

A selection of abstracts of clinically relevant papers from other journals. The abstracts on this page have been chosen and edited by John R. Radford.

Abstract

Compared with conventional infiltration analgesia using articaine, those who received anaesthetic gel perceived more pain (p = 0.000) although 69% of patients favoured the gel.

Main

Derman SH, Lowden CE et al. J Clin Periodontol 2014; 41: 481–488

Does the use of intra-pocket anaesthesia gel, with associated sub-optimal analgesia, compromise treatment outcomes? In this split-mouth, randomised, single-blind trial carried out with 38 patients, periodontal outcomes (probing pocket depths and clinical attachment level) were measured before debridement and six weeks after treatment. Anaesthesia gel (2.5% lidocaine and 2.5% prilocaine – presumably Oraqix^®, but not stated in the paper) was used for one side of the mouth and articaine on the contra-lateral side. For the second appointment one week later, the methods for anaesthesia were switched. Regardless of analgesia, similar favourable periodontal outcomes were achieved. 'Rescue anaesthesia' was carried out for five patients who found the gel ineffective. Issues pertaining to the use of this anaesthetic gel as claimed by the supplier (see FDA Warning Letter/Notice of Violation Letter – http://www.pharmcast.com/WarningLetters/Yr2011/Jan2011/DENTSPLY0111.htm) were not discussed.