Arrested eruption of the permanent lower second molar.
(1/338)
The incidence of retention/impaction of the permanent lower second molar (M2inf) lies between 0.6/1000 and 3/1000. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to investigate the craniofacial morphology, the frequency of dental anomalies and the inclination of the affected M2inf and the adjacent first molar in patients with arrested eruption of M2inf. The overall goal was to elucidate the aetiology of arrested tooth eruption and to present the characteristics of these patients in order to improve diagnosis and treatment planning. Radiographic material (profile radiographs and orthopantomograms) from 19 patients (nine females and 10 males; 13-19 years of age at the time of referral) were analysed. The ages of the patients when profile radiographs were taken for cephalometric analysis varied from 8 to 16 years. The study shows that this group of patients, compared with a reference group, had an increased sagittal jaw relationship (Class II). Specifically, the mandibular prognathism was less, the mandibular gonial angle smaller, the mandibular alveolar prognathism enlarged and the maxillary incisor inclination less than in the reference group. Furthermore, this group of patients had a more frequent occurrence of morphological tooth anomalies, such as root deflections, invaginations, and taurodontism. However, none of the patients with arrested eruption of M2inf had agenesis of the lower third molar. The study did not reveal an association between the degree of inclination of the M2inf and that of the first molar in the same region. The results of this investigation show that conditions such as the craniofacial morphology and deviations in the dentition are associated with arrested eruption of M2inf. Therefore, it is important to evaluate these conditions in future diagnosis and treatment planning of patients with arrested eruption of M2inf. (+info)
Balanced pre-emptive analgesia: does it work? A double-blind, controlled study in bilaterally symmetrical oral surgery.
(2/338)
We studied 32 patients undergoing bilateral symmetrical lower third molar surgery under general anaesthesia to determine if the combined effects of pre-emptive local anaesthetic block using 0.5% bupivacaine, together with i.v. tenoxicam and alfentanil had any benefits over postoperative administration. Patients acted as their own controls and were allocated randomly to have surgery start on one side, the second side always being the pre-emptive side. Difference in pain intensity between the two sides was determined using visual analogue scales completed by each individual at 6 h, and at 1, 3 and 6 days after operation. A long-form McGill pain questionnaire was also used to assess difference in pain intensity between the two sides on the morning after surgery. There was no significant difference in pain intensity at any time after surgery. Our findings indicate that the combined use of pre-emptive analgesia from 0.5% bupivacaine, tenoxicam and alfentanil did not reduce postoperative pain intensity in patients undergoing molar exodontia. (+info)
Tenoxicam and paracetamol-codeine combination after oral surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
(3/338)
We studied 90 adults undergoing surgical removal of at least both lower third molar teeth as day cases under standardized general anaesthesia. Patients were allocated randomly (with stratification for surgeon) to receive tenoxicam 40 mg, tenoxicam 20 mg or placebo i.v. at induction of anaesthesia and orally (effervescent tablets) with food on each of the subsequent 2 days. Panadeine (paracetamol 500 mg-codeine 8 mg) was given before operation and was available as needed for pain thereafter, to a limit of two tablets every 4 h. Nefopam i.v. was also available. Efficacy variables and adverse reactions were assessed over 6 days. Over the 6-day period, patients who received tenoxicam reported less pain on rest (area under the curve; P < 0.05) and less disturbance in sleep (P < 0.01) even though they used fewer Panadeine tablets (P < 0.05). Differences between tenoxicam 40 mg and 20 mg were not significant. There was no significant difference in nefopam requirements or side effects, and no adverse event attributable to the study medication. (+info)
Effectiveness of preoperative analgesics on postoperative dental pain: a study.
(4/338)
Patients undergoing extractions of third molar teeth under general anesthesia were given a placebo, diclofenac (a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug) 100 mg, or methadone (an opiate) 10 mg 60 to 90 min prior to surgery, and their pain scores and postoperative medication requirements were measured for 3 days. All patients received local anesthetic blocks and analgesic drugs during the perioperative period. There were no significant differences between the three groups in the pain scores and medication requirements during the period of study. It was concluded that preoperative use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opiates may not offer a preemptive analgesic effect in patients who have had adequate analgesia during the surgery. Continued use of analgesic drugs during the postoperative period is perhaps more useful for this purpose. There appears to be a higher incidence of vomiting following opiates (methadone), precluding its clinical use in day-care patients. (+info)
Epinephrine, magnesium, and dental local anesthetic solutions.
(5/338)
Plasma levels of magnesium were unaffected by the inclusion of epinephrine in lidocaine dental local anesthetic solutions in patients having third molar surgery under general anesthesia. (+info)
Analgesic and anti-inflammatory efficacy of tenoxicam and diclofenac sodium after third molar surgery.
(6/338)
Tenoxicam and diclofenac sodium were compared with each other for analgesic efficacy following removal of third molars under general anesthesia. Thirty-five healthy patients between the ages of 18 and 28 yr were randomly allocated to two groups to participate in this study. Patients in Group A (n = 17) received a single intravenous injection of tenoxicam 40 mg at induction of anesthesia, followed by a 20-mg tablet given in the evening of the day of the operation and thereafter, one 20-mg tablet daily from days 2 to 7. Group B (n = 18) received a single intramuscular injection of diclofenac sodium 75 mg at induction of anesthesia, followed by a 50-mg tablet 4 to 6 hr after the operation and again, between 2100 hr and 2200 hr the same day. Thereafter, a 50-mg tablet was taken 3 times daily for the next 6 days. Pain was measured hourly for the first 4 hr postoperatively, then at 21 hr, and thereafter in the morning and the evenings on days 2 to 7. The highest pain scores were obtained 1 hr postoperatively for both trial groups. At 1 and 2 hr postoperatively, no statistical significant differences in pain scores could be shown for both groups. However, at 3 and 4 hr postoperatively, patients in the tenoxicam group experienced significantly (P < or = 0.05) less pain than those in the diclofenac sodium group. On the evening of the third postoperative day, the tenoxicam group of patients experienced significantly less pain (P < or = 0.05) than those in the diclofenac sodium group. This was again the case on the morning of the fourth postoperative day. On the fifth, sixth, and seventh postoperative days, the average pain scores for patients in the tenoxicam group were statistically significantly lower, both mornings and evenings, than those in the diclofenac sodium group of patients (P = 0.05). (+info)
Comparison of recovery of propofol and methohexital sedation using an infusion pump.
(7/338)
Two sedative anesthetic agents administered by an infusion pump were compared during third molar surgery. Forty American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I or II volunteers were randomly allocated to two groups. All subjects received supplemental oxygen via a nasal hood, fentanyl (0.0007 mg/kg intravenous [i.v.] bolus), and midazolam (1 mg/2 min) titrated to effect. Patients then received either 0.3 mg/kg of methohexital or 0.5 mg/kg of propofol via an infusion pump. Upon completion of the bolus, a continuous infusion of 0.05 mg/kg/min methohexital or 0.066 mg/kg/min propofol was administered throughout the procedure. Hemo-dynamic and respiratory parameters and psychomotor performance were compared for the two groups and no significant differences were found. The continuous infusion method maintained a steady level of sedation. Patients receiving propofol had a smoother sedation as judged by the surgeon and anesthetist. (+info)
Impact of third molar removal on demands for postoperative care and job disruption: does anaesthetic choice make a difference?
(8/338)
A prospective cohort study was undertaken to investigate the influences of anaesthetic modality and surgical difficulty on social reintegration and demands on health services after third molar removal. The study was undertaken at the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Cardiff Dental Hospital. Of 444 patients, 266 (60%) had their third molars removed. The main outcome measures included anaesthetic modality, surgical difficulty (WHARFE scores), utilisation of health services, effects on work, school and home life. In all, 101 (40%) patients were treated under local anaesthesia (LA) +/- intravenous (i.v.) sedation and 165 (60%) under general anaesthesia (GA); 81 (49%) as inpatients and 84 (51%) as day cases. Of these patients, 38 (14%) returned to the hospital and 74 (28%) utilised primary care services postoperatively in addition to a standard review appointment. Patients treated under GA made more demands on primary care services (chi 2 = 6.41, df = 2, P < 0.05) and took more time away from work (P < 0.05). Patients underestimated the time they needed to recover. There was similar disruption to job, college and home life. There were no links between disruption and particular anaesthetic modalities and surgical difficulty. Surgery under GA was linked to increased postoperative demands on primary care, but not secondary care, and to longer job disruption. This could not fully be attributed to surgical difficulty. (+info)