Periapical disease is the result of bacteria, their product, and the host response to them. Early histological studies of diseased periapical tissue have not been able to demonstrate viable bacteria in the lesions studied. Recent reports indicate that many of periapical lesions are indeed infected before and after endodontic treatment. The validity and applicability of the microbial delivery overcome many disadvantages that we see with systemic drugs. In this case report we presented a novel approach of managing chronic diffuse periapical lesion of lower molar based on specific selection of intracanal medicament in combination with direct periapical injection. We used bacterial culturing and antibiotic sensitivity test to select specific intracanal medicament, in addition we presented an intraosseous injection technique to locally deliver the selected medicament directly into the periapical lesion. Our findings are encouraging and promising. The validity and applicability of the technique needs to be tested in a well controlled clinical trial.

In their practice every dentist is brought into a situation to treat patients with grossly impaired kidney function. Kidney diseases, whether acute or acquired, imply a number of body dysfunctions such as prolonged bleeding, high blood pressure, infection tendency etc. which, in turn, pose a threat involving serious complications in cases of dental interventions in these patients. The aim of this article is to provide a review of current dental practice in patients with kidney disease. This implies dental intervention and preparations of patients with chronic renal disease, nephritic syndrome, patients on dialysis, and patients with kidney transplants. Certainly, cooperation between the dentist and nephrologist is an imperative for the appropriate dental treatment of patients with grossly impaired renal function.

It is a well-known scientific fact that only a small percentage of infiltration of inferior alveolar nerve is clinically proven to be efficient. The objective of this study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of supplemental intraosseous injection, used after the insufficient classical mandibular block that didn't provide deep pulp anesthesia of mandibular molar planed for extraction. The experimental teeth consisted of 98 mandibular molars with clinical indication for extraction. Based on the history of disease, we indicated the extraction of the tooth. After that each tooth was tested with a electric pulp tester P1. We tested the pulp vitality and precisely determined the level of vitality. After that, each patient received classical mandibular block, and the pulp vitality was tested again. If the pulp tester indicated negative vitality for the certain mandibular molar, and the patient didn't complain about pain or discomfort during the extraction, the molar was extracted and the result was added to anesthetic success rate for the classical mandibular block. If, five minutes after receiving the mandibular block, the pulp tester indicated positive vitality (parameters of vitality) or the patient complained about pain or discomfort (parameters of pain and discomfort), we used the Stabident intraosseous anesthesia system. Three minutes after the application of supplemental intraosseous injection the molar was tested with the pulp tester again. The anesthetic solution used in both anesthetic techniques is lidocaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine. The results of this study indicate that the anesthetic efficacy of the mandibular block is 74.5%, and that supplemental intraosseous anesthesia, applied after the insufficient mandibular block, provides pulpal anesthesia in 94.9% of mandibular molars. The difference between anesthetic efficacy of the classical mandibular block and anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental intraosseous anesthesia, applied after the insufficient mandibular block, is obvious.