Is Bilateral Mental Incisive Nerve Block Better than Unilateral Mental Incisive Nerve Block during the Endodontic Management of Mandibular Incisors with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis? A Prospective Single-blind Randomized Clinical Trial

IntroductionThe purpose of this clinical trial was to comparatively evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of unilateral and bilateral mental incisive nerve block (MINB) during the endodontic treatment of inflamed mandibular incisors.MethodsThe study was designed as a crossover single-blind study. A total of 76 patients requiring endodontic intervention in at least 2 mandibular incisors participated in this trial. The patients randomly received unilateral or bilateral MINB of 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine at 2 separate appointments. To blind the procedure, a saline injection was given on the contralateral side in the unilateral injections. The endodontic procedure was initiated in the incisors on the side of the first anesthetic injection. Patients with a negative response to electric testing received endodontic access opening under rubber dam. Patients were asked to report pain, if any, during the endodontic procedure by using a Heft-Parker visual analog scale. The anesthetic success was defined as no or mild pain on Heft-Parker visual analog scale (score, 0–54). The statistical analysis was performed with McNemar tests at P values <.05.ResultsThe success rates of unilateral MINB and bilateral MINB were 38% and 64%, respectively, for the central incisors and 44% and 69%, respectively, for the lateral incisors. The difference was statistically significant (P < .05).ConclusionsThe bilateral MINB was more successful during the endodontic management of mandibular incisors with inflamed pulps. However, both the techniques failed to give 100% success rates.     

Comparative Analysis of the Anesthetic Efficacy of 0.5 and 0.75?% Ropivacaine for Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Surgical Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars

Introduction

Ropivacaine belongs to pipecoloxylidide group of local anesthetics. There are reports supporting the use of ropivacaine as a long acting local anesthetic in oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures, with variable data on the concentration that is clinically suitable.

Materials and Methods

A prospective randomized double-blind study protocol was undertaken to assess the efficacy of 0.5 and 0.75 % ropivacaine for inferior alveolar nerve block in surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. A total of 60 procedures were performed, of which thirty patients received 0.5 % and thirty received 0.75 % concentration of the study drug.

Results

All the patients in both the study groups reported subjective numbness of lip and tongue. The time of onset was longer for 0.5 % ropivacaine when compared to 0.75 % solution. 90 % of the study patients in 0.5 % ropivacaine group reported pain corresponding to VAS ≥3 during bone guttering and 93.3 % patients reported pain corresponding to VAS >4 during tooth elevation. None of the patients in 0.75 % ropivacaine group reported VAS >3 at any stage of the surgical procedure. The duration of soft tissue anesthesia recorded with 0.75 % ropivacaine was average 287.57 ± 42.0 min.

Conclusion

0.75 % ropivacaine was found suitable for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars.     

Anesthetic Efficacy of 4 % Articaine During Extraction of the Mandibular Posterior Teeth by Using Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block and Buccal Infiltration Techniques

Introduction

The study was designed to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 4 % articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (A100) in infiltration and inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) anesthetic techniques for the pain control during extraction of the mandibular posterior teeth.

Methods

This prospective randomized single-blind clinical trial included 100 patients needing extraction of at least two mandibular molars. Patients received either infiltration in the buccal vestibule opposite to the first molar supplemented with lingual infiltration or standard IANB with A100. For assessment of depth of anesthesia obtained by the two anaethetic techniques, presence or absence of pain during the extraction were rated using the visual analog scale.

Results

Fifty patients received infiltration anesthesia and fifty patients were anesthetized by IANB. The success rate of pain-free extraction after buccal infiltration was 94 %, whereas by using IANB with the same anesthetic it was 92 %. No statistical differences were detected in the success rates between the two anesthetic techniques (P = 0.15).

Conclusions

Buccal Infiltration can be considered a good option during extraction of the mandibular molar and premolar teeth of course, with supplemental lingual anesthesia.

     

A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Pulpotomy versus Root Canal Therapy in Mature Teeth with Irreversible Pulpitis: Outcome,Quality of Life,and Patients’ Satisfaction

IntroductionVital pulp therapy is increasingly practiced as an alternative treatment to root canal therapy (RCT) in teeth with carious pulp exposure. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome, quality of life (QOL), and patients’ satisfaction after full pulpotomy and RCT in mature teeth with irreversible pulpitis.MethodsSixty mature permanent molar teeth with carious pulp exposure and a diagnosis of irreversible pulpitis were randomly divided into 2 groups (n = 30). The first group was treated with full pulpotomy using Biodentine (Septodont, Saint Maur des Fosses, France), and the second group was treated with RCT. The pain level was recorded preoperatively and at 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 days. Clinical and radiographic assessments were performed at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups; 1 case in each group did not attend. Based on the Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaire and 7 semantic differential scales, QOL, and patients’ satisfaction were evaluated and compared statistically.ResultsPulpotomy and RCT had comparable success rates (27/29, 93%). Pain levels at day 1 after pulpotomy were significantly lower than after RCT (P = .037), less patients required analgesics (P = .028), and pulpotomy provided pain relief in a shorter time compared with RCT. Both treatments improved the Oral Health Impact Profile QOL of patients without significant differences (60.29, 64.1% at 1 year). Patients’ satisfaction with pulpotomy was higher than RCT in terms of the time involved, intraoperative pain, pleasantness, and cost (P < .05).ConclusionsFull pulpotomy could be an alternative treatment to RCT in mature teeth with carious pulp exposure and symptomatic irreversible pulpitis based on the clinical and radiographic success rates and patients’ satisfaction.     

Oral Health Interventions Using Chlorhexidine—Effects on the Prevalence of Oral Opportunistic Pathogens in Stroke Survivors: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Objective

To evaluate the presence of oral opportunistic pathogens among stroke survivors, both before and after oral health care interventions.

Does the Combination of 3% Mepivacaine Plain Plus 2% Lidocaine with Epinephrine Improve Anesthesia and Reduce the Pain of Anesthetic Injection for the Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block? A Prospective,Randomized, Double-blind Study

Introduction

In theory, using 3% mepivacaine initially for an inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block would decrease the pain of injection, provide faster onset, and increase anesthetic success. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with a combination of 3% mepivacaine/2% lidocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) versus a combination of 2% lidocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine)/2% lidocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) in IAN blocks. Injection pain was also studied.

Methods

One hundred asymptomatic subjects were randomly given a combination of a 1-cartridge volume of 3% mepivacaine plus a 1-cartridge volume of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and a combination of a 1-cartridge volume of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine plus a 1-cartridge volume of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for the IAN block at 2 separate appointments. Subjects rated the pain of injection. The molars, premolars, and incisors were tested with an electric pulp tester in 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes. Anesthetic success was defined as the subject achieving 2 consecutive 80 readings within 15 minutes after completion of the IAN blocks and sustaining the 80 reading for 60 minutes.

Results

Success was not significantly different (P > .05) between the 2 combinations. No statistical differences in injection pain or onset times were found.

Conclusions

The combination of 3% mepivacaine plus 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was equivalent to the combination of 2 cartridges of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in terms of injection pain, onset time, and pulpal anesthetic success for the IAN block.