0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Kovanaze Intranasal Spray vs Traditional Injected Anesthetics: a Study of Pulpal Blood Flow Utilizing Laser Doppler Flowmetry

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective:

          An ideal local anesthetic would be effective, minimally reduce pulpal blood flow (PBF), and not require injection. This study compared the effects of 3% tetracaine plus 0.05% oxymetazoline nasal spray (Kovanaze; KNS) and injections using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (LE) or 3% mepivacaine plain (MP) on PBF, anesthetic efficacy, and participant preference.

          Methods:

          In a double-blind cross-over design, 20 subjects randomly received a test anesthetic and placebo at each of 3 visits (KNS/mock infiltration; mock nasal spray/LE; or mock nasal spray/MP). Nasal sprays and infiltration apical to a maxillary central incisor were delivered ipsilaterally. PBF was evaluated by laser Doppler flowmetry, and local anesthetic success was assessed with electric pulp testing. Postoperative pain levels, participant preference, and adverse events were also assessed.

          Results:

          LE injections demonstrated significant reductions in PBF at all time intervals compared with baseline (P < .05), whereas KNS and MP did not. Pulpal anesthesia success rates were higher for LE (85%) compared with MP (35%) and KNS (5%). Participants reported significantly higher postoperative pain levels for KNS compared with LE and MP. Additionally, KNS was the least preferred of the anesthetics administered and resulted in more reported adverse events.

          Conclusion:

          Although KNS showed no significant effect on PBF, it was not effective in achieving pulpal anesthesia as used in this study.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          An experimental basis for revising the graphic rating scale for pain.

          Seven subjects judged the differences between electrocutaneous shocks and words from two category rating lists describing those sensations in each of two differences estimation experiments. The electrocutaneous shocks used for the two experiments were 10 suprathreshold shock intensities determined separately for each subject. There were two distinct 7-word category rating lists. Both lists shared 6 common words; however, the seventh word made the rational ordering of the two lists different. Magnitude scales of meaning for the category rating words and sensory scales for the electrocutaneous shock intensities were determined for each of the two experiments for each subject using conjoint measurement analysis. Comparisons of the sensory scales for electrocutaneous shock between the two difference estimation experiments for each subject showed that they judged the electrocutaneous shocks similarly with the two words lists. This allowed for comparisons between the scales of meaning for the words from the category rating lists. The two word lists were not equivalent. There was substantial agreement among the subjects on characteristic spacings of quantitative values for the category rating items. These results suggest that clinical ratings scales used for analgesimetry should not assume homogeneity of spacing of category items. A scale incorporating our subjects' common understanding is presented.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The ASA Classification of Physical Status–A Recapitulation

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A survey of pain, pressure, and discomfort induced by commonly used oral local anesthesia injections.

              Intraoral local anesthesia is essential for delivering dental care. However, it is often perceived by some patients as the most painful and in some instances as the only painful part of the treatment, leading in extreme cases to avoidance of dental care. The present study measured the variables of pain, pressure, and discomfort caused by 4 commonly used local anesthesia injections: local infiltration, mental nerve block, inferior alveolar nerve block, and periodontal ligament injections. Patients were asked to grade pain, discomfort, and pressure on a visual analog scale as associated with needle insertion, operator finger position in the mouth, and pressure at injection. The inferior alveolar injection was graded to be the most painful followed by periodontal ligament and then mental nerve block injections. The periodontal ligament injections yielded the highest pressure scores. The inferior alveolar block injection yielded significantly more discomfort than local infiltration and mental nerve block injections when comparing finger and needle position. Local infiltration in the anterior maxillary region yielded the highest needle insertion and finger position discomfort scores. The present study suggests that the dental operator should be aware of local anesthesia injection pain, pressure, and discomfort together with efficacy of technique.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Anesthesia Progress
                American Dental Society of Anesthesiology (ADSA)
                1878-7177
                0003-3006
                April 01 2022
                April 4 2022
                April 01 2022
                April 4 2022
                : 69
                : 1
                : 31-38
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Endodontics, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, School of Dentistry, New Orleans, Louisiana
                [2 ]Division of Pediatric Dentistry, The Ohio State University College of Dentistry, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio
                [3 ]Cariology, Restorative Sciences, and Endodontics, University of Michigan, School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, Michigan
                [4 ]Biostatistics Program, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, School of Public Health, New Orleans, Louisiana
                Article
                10.2344/anpr-68-03-10
                400fc994-1e38-4b25-8df2-36998a633643
                © 2022
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article