Background/Aim. Surgical extraction of lower third molars is followed by mild or severe postoperative pain which peaks at maximal intensity in the first 12 hours and has a significant impact on a patient?s postoperative quality of life. The use of long-acting local anaesthetics is a promising strategy to improve postoperative analgesia. The aim of the present study was to investigate analgesic parameters and patient satisfaction after using 0.5% levobupivacaine (Lbup), 0.5% bupivacaine (Bup) and 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:80,000 (Lid + Epi) for an inferior alveolar nerve block following lower third molar surgery. Methods. A total of 102 patients (ASA I) were divided into three groups, each of which received either 3 mL of Lbup, Bup or Lid + Epi. The intensity of postoperative analgesia was measured using a verbal rating scale (VRS). The total amounts of rescue analgesics were recorded on the first and during seven postoperative days. Patients satisfaction was noted using a modified verbal scales. Results. A significantly higher level of postoperative pain was recorded in Lid + Epi group compared to Bup and Lbup groups. No significant differences were seen between Bup and Lbup, but a significant reduction in the need for rescue analgesics was seen postoperatively in both Lbup and Bup (50%) in comparison with Lid + Epi (80%) in the first 24 hours. The same significant trend in rescue analgesic consumption was recorded for seven postoperative days. Patients? overall satisfaction was significantly lower for Lid + Epi (10%) than for Lbup (56%) and Bup (52%). Conclusion. The use of a new and long-acting local anaesthetic 0.5% levobupivacaine is clinically relevant and effective for an inferior alveolar nerve block and postoperative pain control after third molar surgery. In our study Lbup and Bup controled postoperative pain more efficiently after lower third molar surgery compared to Lid + Epi.

Introduction. Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease with a variety of oral manifestations (dry mouth, reduced salivary flow, painful mucosal lesions and restricted mouth opening, impaired oral hygiene maintenance), as well as possible far-reaching systemic implications. In the context of SLE, oral rehabilitation with dental implants might be the most appropriate solution. However, a lack of available literature, as well as the absence of treatment protocols, often leads to unsatisfactory management of these patients. The aim of this paper was to describe oral rehabilitation of a patient with SLE using dental implants and fixed dentures in both jaws. Case outline. A 66-year-old female patient, who had suffered from SLE for over 30 years, was referred for oral rehabilitation as her chief complaints related to the existing mobile partial dentures in the jaws and poor chewing ability. Proposed oral rehabilitation with fixed dentures supported by six dental implants in the maxilla and four dental implants in the mandible, as well as prosthetic restoration of the mandibular teeth, was accepted by the patient. During the follow-up period of three years, no biological complications were observed related to the performed treatment. Conclusion. Dental implants might be the most suitable treatment modality for oral rehabilitation of patients suffering from SLE.