Objectives:To investigate the success rate of supplemental intraseptal and buccal infiltration anaesthesia in mandibular molars undergoing endodontic therapy/extraction when the inferior alveolar nerve block has failed. Material and Methods: A prospective clinical trial including 200 patients undergoing lower molar root canal treatment/teeth extraction was conducted. Only 80 patients of the participants who had profound lower lip anaesthesia after the administration of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) were in pain within treatment. Patients experiencing moderate to severe pain upon using elevators, forceps, bur, or endodontic file were randomly allocated to the 2% lidocaine intraseptal injection and 4% articaine buccal infiltration groups. Level of pain was assessed every 2 to 10 min on standard 100 mm visual analogue scales. Results: Overall, 55 (69%) of patients who were given either intraseptal injection of 2% lidocaine or buccal infiltration of 4% articaine had successful anaesthesia of lower molar teeth within 10 min. However, 25 (31%) of participating patients in the buccal infiltration and the intraseptal groups had failed anaesthesia within the study duration (10 min), and they received additional local anaesthetic. IANBs were more painful than buccal and intraseptal injections. However, buccal articaine injections were significantly more comfortable than intraseptal lidocaine injections (P > 0.001). Conclusions: Supplemental intraseptal injection of 2% lidocaine and buccal infiltration of 4% articaine achieved profound pulpal anaesthesia in 69% of patients when the inferior alveolar nerve block failed. Recommendations can be given to dental practitioners to use infiltration of 4% articaine in conjunction with intraseptal injection of 2% lidocaine to anaesthetize the lower molar teeth when inferior alveolar nerve block fails.

Background:  Painful temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs) are of musculoskeletal origin and are considered the most common cause of non-odontogenic pain in the orofacial region.  The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence and awareness of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders in Almadinah Almunawwarah community. Methods: An observational cross-sectional study with convenience sampling was conducted. A translated Arabic version of Fonseca's questionnaire was employed. The questionnaire asked about the participant's personal information, if they thought they had TMDs, and who to visit for therapy if necessary. These were followed by 10 items from Fonseca's questionnaire, each with a three-point scale. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 598 people. Females made up 57.1% of the participants. TMDs were present in 61% of the population, with varying degrees of severity. Males (44.3%) were less affected than females (55.7%). The difference, however, was not statistically significant (P = 0.354). Out of the 61% TMDs Positive patients, 74.1% had mild TMDs symptoms, while 20.8% and 5.1%, respectively, had moderate and severe TMDs symptoms (P = 0.05). The severity of the symptoms was unaffected by demographic data (P > 0.05). Only 40% seek care, with 64.6% selecting for a dentist and 24.6% preferring for an orthopaedic specialist (P= 0.008). Conclusions: Participants from Al-Madinah had a greater prevalence of mild TMDs. The majority of the participants had no idea who to go to for treatment. The findings of this study highlight the importance of educational activities to enhance public awareness. Fonseca's Anamnestic Index could also be considered as a useful instrument for early identification and measuring the severity of TMDs in the general population.

Background:  Painful temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs) are of musculoskeletal origin and are considered the most common cause of non-odontogenic pain in the orofacial region.  The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence and awareness of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders in Almadinah Almunawwarah community. Methods: An observational cross-sectional study with convenience sampling was conducted. A modified version of Fonseca's questionnaire was employed. The questionnaire asked about the participant's personal information, if they thought they had TMDs, and who to visit for therapy if necessary. These were followed by 10 items from Fonseca's questionnaire, each with a three-point scale. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 598 people. Females made up 57.1% of the participants. TMDs were present in 61% of the population, with varying degrees of severity. Males (44.3%) were less affected than females (55.7%). The difference, however, was not statistically significant (P = 0.354). Out of the 61% TMDs Positive patients, 74.1% had mild TMDs symptoms, while 20.8% and 5.1%, respectively, had moderate and severe TMDs symptoms (P = 0.05). The severity of the symptoms was unaffected by demographic data (P > 0.05). Only 40% seek care, with 64.6% selecting for a dentist and 24.6% preferring for an orthopaedic specialist (P= 0.008). Conclusions: Participants from Al-Madinah had a greater prevalence of mild TMDs. The majority of the participants had no idea who to go to for treatment. The findings of this study highlight the importance of educational activities to enhance public awareness. Fonseca's Anamnestic Index could also be considered as a useful instrument for early identification and measuring the severity of TMDs in the general population.