Anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL versus 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a primary buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar

Introduction

No study has compared 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in a mandibular buccal infiltration of the first molar. The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, single-blind, crossover study comparing the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a primary infiltration in the mandibular first molar.

Methods

Eighty-six asymptomatic adult subjects randomly received a primary mandibular buccal first molar infiltration of 1.8 mL or 3.6 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in two separate appointments. The authors used an electric pulp tester to test the first molar for anesthesia in 3-minute cycles for 90 minutes after the injections.

Results

Compared with the 1.8-mL volume of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, the 3.6-mL volume showed a statistically higher success rate (70% vs 50%).

Conclusions

The anesthetic efficacy of 3.6 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine is better than 1.8 mL of the same anesthetic solution in a primary mandibular buccal infiltration of the first molar. However, the success rate of 70% is not high enough to support its use as a primary injection technique in the mandibular first molar.     

Anesthetic efficacy of ropivacaine in maxillary anterior infiltration

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective, randomized double-blind study was to evaluate and compare the anesthetic efficacy of 0.5% ropivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, of 0.5% ropivacaine, and of 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine in maxillary lateral incisor infiltrations. STUDY DESIGN: Forty subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, 3 infiltrations at 3 separate appointments, in a repeated-measures design. The injections consisted of an infiltration of 1.8 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine plain, an infiltration of 1.8 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and an infiltration of 1.8 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine (control solution). The maxillary lateral incisor pulpal anesthesia was evaluated with an electric pulp tester at 2-minute cycles for 90 minutes after injection. No response from the subject to the maximum output (80 reading) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained. The duration of pulpal anesthesia was recorded as the last 80 reading. RESULTS: One hundred percent of the subjects had lip numbness with all solutions. The anesthetic success rates for ropivacaine plain, ropivacaine with epinephrine, and bupivacaine with epinephrine were 68%, 75%, and 80%, respectively. There were no significant differences (P >.05) among the solutions. The duration of pulpal anesthesia (80 readings) for ropivacaine plain, ropivacaine with epinephrine, and bupivacaine with epinephrine was 13 minutes, 33 minutes, and 33 minutes, respectively. Ropivacaine plain had a significantly shorter duration of pulpal anesthesia than ropivacaine with epinephrine. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that 0.5% ropivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine was equivalent to 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine in pharmacologic action. The duration of pulpal anesthesia was less for ropivacaine without epinephrine. Ropivacaine with epinephrine has the potential to replace bupivacaine with epinephrine in clinical dental practice because of the decreased potential for cardiac and central nervous system toxicity.     

The anesthetic efficacy of 4 percent articaine 1:200,000 epinephrine: two controlled clinical trials

OBJECTIVE: The authors conducted two double-blinded, randomized, multicenter clinical trials to determine the efficacy and clinical anesthetic characteristics of 4 percent articaine hydrochloride (HCl) with 1:200,000 epinephrine (A200) as compared with those of 4 percent articaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine (A100) and 4 percent articaine HCl without epinephrine (Aw/o). METHODS: During separate testing sessions, members of the authors' research team used three articaine study formulations to induce either inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia (Trial 1) or maxillary infiltration anesthesia (Trial 2). In each trial, subjects received, in a randomized sequence, each of the three formulations to determine efficacy (success rate) and anesthetic characteristics (onset time and duration). The authors evaluated pulpal anesthesia via subjects' response to electric pulp testing (EPT). RESULTS: A total of 126 subjects were enrolled in the two studies (63 subjects in each trial). In both mandibular and maxillary trials, the success rates for inducing profound anesthesia (EPT score > 80), the mean onset times and the mean durations of anesthesia were similar for both epinephrine-containing formulations (A200 and A100). In subjects who received the formulation containing no epinephrine (Aw/o), the success rate for profound anesthesia was significantly less. CONCLUSION: These studies demonstrated that the inclusion of epinephrine in 4 percent articaine anesthetic formulations is essential for achieving profound anesthesia. The authors found that the A200 formulation provided a level of pulpal anesthesia comparable with that of the A100 formulation.     

Anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for maxillary infiltrations

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blinded study was to measure the degree of anesthesia obtained with 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in maxillary infiltrations. Ninety-six adult subjects randomly received infiltrations of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of the lidocaine solution at two separate appointments, in a crossover design. Thirty-two lateral incisors, 32 first premolars and 32 first molars were studied in this investigation. Anesthetic success (obtaining two consecutive 80 readings with the electric pulp tester) for the two volumes ranged from 97% to 100%. The onset of pulpal anesthesia was not statistically different between the two volumes. For both volumes, the lateral incisors had a higher percentage of anesthesia of short duration than the first premolar and first molar. The 3.6 mL volume provided a statistically longer duration of pulpal anesthesia for the lateral incisor, first premolar, and first molar.     

Anesthetic efficacy of the mylohyoid nerve block and combination inferior alveolar nerve block/mylohyoid nerve block.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to measure the degree of anesthesia obtained with the mylohyoid nerve block and the combination mylohyoid nerve block/conventional inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block in mandibular teeth. STUDY DESIGN: With the use of a repeated-measures design, 30 subjects randomly received each of 3 combinations of injections at 3 separate appointments. The combinations were as follows: mylohyoid nerve block (1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine) + IAN block (3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine); mock mylohyoid nerve block + IAN block (3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine); mylohyoid nerve block (1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine) + mock IAN block. The mylohyoid injections were aided by the use of a peripheral nerve stimulator. Mandibular anterior and posterior teeth were blindly tested with a pulp tester at 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained. RESULTS: One hundred percent of the subjects had lip numbness with the mylohyoid nerve block + IAN block and mock mylohyoid nerve block + IAN block techniques. For these 2 techniques, anesthetic success rates were higher in posterior teeth (73% to 93%) than in anterior teeth (33% to 60%). There were no significant differences (P > .05) between the 2 techniques. The mylohyoid nerve block + mock IAN block technique resulted in a very low success rate (0% to 17%) and was significantly different (P < .05) from the mylohyoid nerve block + IAN block technique. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the mylohyoid nerve block does not by itself predictably provide pulpal anesthesia in mandibular teeth and does not significantly enhance pulpal anesthesia when administered in combination with the IAN block.     

Anesthetic efficacy of different volumes of lidocaine with epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks

Volumes of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine were compared in inferior alveolar nerve blocks. The first molars, first premolars, and lateral incisors of 462 subjects were pulp tested for 55-60 minutes following administration of inferior alveolar nerve blocks. Results showed no significant difference between the two volumes of anesthetic in achieving successful pulpal anesthesia.     

A Prospective,Randomized Comparison of the Anesthetic Efficacy of the Greater Palatine and High Tuberosity Second Division Nerve Blocks

IntroductionFew clinical studies have evaluated the efficacy of the maxillary second division nerve block. The purpose of this prospective, randomized study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of the greater palatine second division nerve block and the high tuberosity second division nerve block technique by using 3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine.MethodsForty subjects randomly received greater palatine nerve blocks and high tuberosity nerve blocks of 3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine at 2 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. The anterior, premolar, and molar teeth were pulp tested in 4-minute cycles for a total of 60 minutes.Results and ConclusionsBoth techniques resulted in a high success rate of pulpal anesthesia (95%–100%) for first and second molars. Around 70%–80% of the second premolars were anesthetized with both techniques. Both techniques were ineffective for profound pulpal anesthesia of the anterior teeth and first premolars.     

Comparison of onset and duration of action of soft tissue and pulpal anesthesia with three volumes of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in maxillary infiltration anesthesia

Purpose

This randomized double-blind investigation was conducted to compare the onset and duration of action of soft tissue and pulpal anesthesia with three volumes of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in maxillary infiltration anesthesia. The injection discomfort associated with three volumes of infiltration anesthesia was also assessed.

Materials and methods

A total of 10 subjects received 0.6?mL (group 1), 0.9?mL (group 2), and 1.2?mL (group 3) of the anesthetic buccal to the upper canine. Test teeth were assessed with electrical stimulation to determine onset and duration of pulpal anesthesia. Soft tissue anesthesia was assessed by pin-prick test, and injection discomfort was assessed using a visual analogue scale. The statistical analysis of the data recorded was carried out with one-way ANOVA and post-hoc tests.

Results

The 1.2-mL dose induced faster onset of pulpal anesthesia, a higher success rate, and a longer duration of soft tissue/pulpal anesthesia than was achieved with 0.6?mL (P?Conclusion Maxillary infiltration anesthesia with articaine and epinephrine has a faster onset, a greater success rate, and a longer duration when a volume of 1.2?mL is used than when volumes less than 1.0?mL are used. Palatal tissues were anesthetized with the highest concentration (1.2?mL) in our study (30% of cases).     

Anesthetic efficacy of 4% Articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine versus 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine as a primary buccal infiltration in the mandibular first molar

Introduction

No study has compared 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine with 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine in a mandibular buccal infiltration of the first molar. The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover study comparing the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine as a primary infiltration in the mandibular first molar.

Methods

Eighty-six asymptomatic adult subjects randomly received a primary mandibular buccal first molar infiltration of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine in 2 separate appointments. The authors used an electric pulp tester to test the first molar for anesthesia in 3-minute cycles for 60 minutes after the injections.

Results

The two 4% articaine formulations showed no statistically significant difference when comparing anesthetic success, onset of anesthesia, or incidence of pulpal anesthesia.

Conclusions

The anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine is comparable to 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in a primary mandibular buccal infiltration of the first molar.     

Articaine infiltration for anesthesia of mandibular first molars

A randomized, controlled trial of 31 healthy volunteers compared 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine buccal infiltration to buccal plus lingual infiltration of the same dose of drug in achieving pulpal anesthesia of mandibular first molar teeth. Data were compared with efficacy of an inferior alveolar nerve block using 2% lidocaine 1:80,000 epinephrine in a cohort of 27 of the volunteers. Anesthesia was determined using electronic pulp testing. Buccal and buccal plus lingual infiltrations of articaine with epinephrine did not differ in efficacy in obtaining pulpal anesthesia for mandibular permanent first molars (p = 0.17). Efficacy of 4% articaine with epinephrine infiltrations for first molar pulp anesthesia was similar to that of an IANB using lidocaine with epinephrine over a 30-minute study period (96 and 80 episodes of no response to maximal stimulation respectively, p = 0.097). Subjective tooth numbness was more common after IANB than buccal infiltration (p = 0.005). The discomfort of buccal infiltration with articaine was volume dependent (p = 0.017) and similar to that of an IANB.     

The pharmacokinetics and cardiovascular effects of high-dose articaine with 1:100,000 and 1:200,000 epinephrine

OBJECTIVES: The authors conducted a randomized, double-blind, two-way crossover clinical trial to compare the pharmacokinetics and cardiovascular effects of 11.9 milliliters of 4 percent articaine hydrochloride (HCl) plus 1:100,000 epinephrine (A100) with those of 11.9 mL of 4 percent articaine HCl plus 1:200,000 epinephrine (A200). METHODS: During two testing sessions, the authors administered injections of A100 and A200 over a seven-minute period (in one-cartridge doses unless otherwise noted): maxillary right first molar infiltration, maxillary left first molar infiltration, maxillary right first premolar infiltration, maxillary left first premolar infiltration, right inferior alveolar injection, left inferior alveolar injection, right long buccal infiltration (one-half cartridge) and left long buccal infiltration (one-half cartridge). They analyzed venous blood samples for articaine levels. They used noninvasive acoustic tonometry to measure a variety of cardiovascular parameters over a two-hour period. RESULTS: Plasma concentration curves of articaine over time were similar for both solutions, with peak concentrations and times to maximum concentration being 2,037 nanograms per milliliter and 22 minutes for A100 and 2,145 ng/mL and 22 minutes for A200. At the 10-minute point, the mean systolic blood pressure and heart rate were significantly elevated (P < .05) with A100 versus A200. CONCLUSIONS: Maximum dose recommendations for the A100 solution also can be applied to the A200 solution. A200 produces less cardiovascular stimulation than does A100. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: A200 is as safe as A100, and may be preferable to A100 in patients with cardiovascular disease and in those taking drugs that reportedly enhance the systemic effects of epinephrine.     

Anesthetic efficacy of a combination palatal and buccal infiltration of the maxillary first molar

Introduction

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blind crossover study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of a combination palatal and buccal infiltration of the maxillary first molar.

Materials and Methods

Using a crossover design, 40 subjects received two sets of maxillary first molar infiltrations at two separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. The anesthetic used in this study was 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. One set of infiltrations consisted of a buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL of anesthetic and a palatal infiltration of 0.5 mL of anesthetic. The other set consisted of a buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL of anesthetic and a mock palatal infiltration. The first molar was pulp tested in 4-minute cycles for a total of 60 minutes. Anesthetic success was defined as no subject response to two consecutive 80 readings with an electric pulp tester.

Results and Conclusions

The success rates were 88% for the buccal infiltration and 95% for the buccal plus palatal infiltration. The difference was not statistically significant. The buccal plus palatal infiltration significantly increased the incidence of pulpal anesthesia from 21 minutes through 57 minutes. Although there was an increased incidence of pulpal anesthesia with the combination buccal plus palatal infiltration, anesthesia was not provided for 60 minutes.     

Onset and duration periods of articaine and lidocaine on maxillary infiltration.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the onset and duration of pulpal anesthesia by maxillary infiltration using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Twenty healthy patients randomly received 1.8 mL of one of the three local anesthetics during operative dentistry procedures of low complexity on three maxillary posterior teeth. Onset and duration were determined using an electric pulp tester. RESULTS: The mean values for pulpal onset were 2.8, 1.6, and 1.4 minutes and for pulpal duration were 39.2, 56.7, and 66.3 minutes, respectively, for 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Statistical analysis by the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test showed significant differences with better results (shorter onset and longer duration periods) for both articaine solutions compared with the lidocaine solution. Although 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine clinically presented the shortest onset and the longest duration periods, there was no statistically significant difference between the articaine solutions. CONCLUSION: Both articaine solutions produced shorter onset and longer duration of pulpal anesthesia by maxillary infiltration than the lidocaine solution did. Statistical analysis did not confirm better clinical results of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine than with 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine.     

Effect of Intraosseous Anesthesia on Control of Hemostasis in Pigs

IntroductionIntraosseous anesthesia is used to deliver anesthetic into cancellous bone adjacent to the root apices. No study has assessed the effect of this anesthetic technique on hemostasis. The purpose of this study was to compare the amount of bleeding from soft tissue and bone in pig jaws after preoperative intraosseous or infiltration anesthesia with 2% lidocaine containing 1:50,000 epinephrine.MethodsTwelve pigs were divided into 3 groups. The first group received infiltration anesthesia on one half of the jaw and no anesthesia on the other half. The second group received intraosseous anesthesia on one half of the jaw and no anesthesia on the other half. The third group received infiltration anesthesia on one half of the jaw and intraosseous anesthesia on the second half. Blood was collected during flap reflection to measure the volume of soft tissue bleeding. Osteotomies were then prepared with blood collected from the surgical site to measure the volume of osseous bleeding.ResultsThe median soft tissue blood loss observed in animals receiving infiltration anesthesia (1.14 mL) was significantly less as compared with animals that received no anesthesia (4.49 mL) or intraosseous anesthesia (2.45 mL). Compared with median hard tissue blood loss observed in animals without anesthesia (1.51 mL), significantly less blood loss was observed in animals receiving either infiltration anesthesia (0.67 mL) or intraosseous anesthesia (0.76 mL).ConclusionsInfiltration anesthesia resulted in significantly less soft tissue bleeding (p = .004) as compared with no anesthesia. Infiltration and intraosseous anesthesia resulted in significantly less osseous bleeding than the use of no anesthetic (p < .001). The volume of blood loss for each animal was shown to be below the maximum safe volume of blood loss for a single procedure.     

Anesthetic Comparisons of 4% Concentrations of Articaine,Lidocaine, and Prilocaine as Primary Buccal Infiltrations of the Mandibular First Molar: A Prospective Randomized,Double-blind Study

Introduction

Studies have shown the superiority of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine over 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine when used as a primary buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar. A study using other 4% anesthetic formulations may help determine the role of concentration in the increased efficacy of 4% articaine. The authors conducted a prospective randomized, double-blind, crossover study comparing the pulpal anesthesia obtained with 4% concentrations of articaine, lidocaine, and prilocaine formulations as primary buccal infiltrations of the mandibular first molar.

Methods

Sixty asymptomatic adult subjects randomly received a primary mandibular buccal first molar infiltration of 1.8 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, and 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine in 3 separate appointments. An electric pulp tester was used to test the first molar for anesthesia in 3-minute cycles for 60 minutes after the infiltrations. Successful anesthesia was defined as 2 consecutive 80/80 readings.

Results

The success rate for the 4% articaine formulation was 55%, 33% for the 4% lidocaine formulation, and 32% for the 4% prilocaine formulation. There was a significant difference between articaine and both lidocaine (P = .0071) and prilocaine (P = .0187) formulations.

Conclusions

A 4% articaine formulation was statistically better than both 4% lidocaine and 4% prilocaine formulations for buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar in asymptomatic mandibular first molars. However, the success rate of 55% is not high enough to support its use as a primary buccal infiltration technique in the mandibular first molar.     

Submucous tramadol increases the anesthetic efficacy of mepivacaine with epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve block

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of submucous tramadol as adjuvant of mepivacaine with epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve block. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover clinical trial was conducted. Twenty healthy young volunteers were randomized into two treatment sequences using a series of random numbers. Sequence 1: Group A, 2% mepivacaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine plus submucous tramadol 50mg (1mL of saline) and one week later Group B, 2% mepivacaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine plus submucous placebo (1mL of saline). Sequence 2: Group B and one week later Group A. All treatments were administered 1min after that patient informed anesthesia of lower lip. We evaluated the duration of anesthesia of lower lip, anesthetic efficacy, and local and systemic adverse events. Anesthetic efficacy was better in group receiving submucous tramadol during the first 2h compared with group receiving submucous placebo (P<0.05). Submucous tramadol increased the anesthetic efficacy of mepivacaine with epinephrine of soft tissue in inferior alveolar nerve block.     

A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of bupivacaine and lidocaine for maxillary infiltrations

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in maxillary lateral incisors and first molars. Sixty-five subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, two infiltrations at two separate appointments, in a crossover design. The injections consisted of maxillary lateral incisor and first molar infiltrations of 1.8 mL 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 1.8 mL 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. In maxillary lateral incisors, bupivacaine exhibited a significantly lower anesthetic success rate (obtaining two consecutive 80 readings with the pulp tester within 10 minutes) of 78% when compared with a 97% success rate with lidocaine. In maxillary first molars, bupivacaine's onset of pulpal anesthesia (7.7 minutes) was significantly slower than lidocaine (4.3 minutes). Bupivacaine had a lower success rate than lidocaine (64% versus 82%) but there was no significant difference between the two solutions. Neither solution provided pulpal anesthesia for 1 hour.     

Comparing anesthetic efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine as a supplemental buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar after an inferior alveolar nerve block

BACKGROUND: The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover study comparing the degree of pulpal anesthesia achieved by means of mandibular first molar buccal infiltrations of two anesthetic solutions: 4 percent articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine after an inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block with the use of 4 percent articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. METHODS: Seventy-three blinded adult subjects randomly received buccal infiltrations at the first molar site with a cartridge of 4 percent articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine at one appointment and a cartridge of 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine at another appointment after receiving a standard IAN block with the use of 4 percent articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in a crossover design. After the injections, the authors used an electric pulp tester to test the first molar for anesthesia in three-minute cycles for 60 minutes. They considered anesthesia to be successful when two consecutive 80 readings were obtained within 10 minutes of the IAN block and infiltration injection, and the 80 reading was sustained continuously through the 60th minute. RESULTS: The authors found that with the use of the 4 percent articaine formulation, successful pulpal anesthesia occurred 88 percent of the time for the first molar. With the 2 percent lidocaine formulation, successful pulpal anesthesia occurred 71 percent of the time. The results show a significant difference (P < .05) between the articaine and lidocaine formulations. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: For a mandibular buccal infiltration of the first molar after a standard IAN block, 4 percent articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine resulted in a higher success rate (88 percent) than did 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (71 percent success rate).     

A Comparison of the Anesthetic Efficacy of Articaine and Lidocaine in Patients with Irreversible Pulpitis

The purpose of the present study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine with that of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine during pulpectomy in patients with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth. Forty volunteers, patients with irreversible pulpitis admitted to the Emergency Center of the School of Dentistry at the University of São Paulo, randomly received a conventional inferior alveolar nerve block containing 3.6 mL of either 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. During the subsequent pulpectomy, we recorded the patients' subjective assessments of lip anesthesia, the absence/presence of pulpal anesthesia through electric pulp stimulation, and the absence/presence of pain through a verbal analogue scale. All tested patients reported lip anesthesia after the application of either inferior alveolar nerve block. Regarding pulpal anesthesia success as measured with the pulp tester, the lidocaine solution had a higher success rate (70%) than the articaine solution (65%). For patients reporting none or mild pain during pulpectomy, the success rate of the articaine solution (65%) was higher than that of the lidocaine solution (45%). Yet, none of the observed differences between articaine and lidocaine were statistically significant. Apparently, therefore, both local anesthetic solutions had similar effects on the patients with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth. Neither of the solutions, however, resulted in an effective pain control during irreversible pulpitis treatments.     

Comparative efficiency of local anesthetics from the group of complex amides during therapeutic stomatological interventions

The efficiency of infiltration, conduction, and intraligamental anesthesia with different drugs for dental interventions was evaluated in 331 patients without concomitant somatic diseases. The efficiency of local anesthesia depends primarily on the drug; other essential factors are the route of this drug administration and type of intervention in the oral cavity. The most effective of the studied anesthetics was 4% artisane with epinephrine 1:100,000; 3% prolocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 ranked second. These anesthetics maximally realized their effects at intraligamental injection during the treatment of caries and periodontitis.