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.     

Articaine and lidocaine mandibular buccal infiltration anesthesia: a prospective randomized double-blind cross-over study

This randomized crossover double-blind trial compared the efficacy of buccal infiltration with 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine (both with 1:100,000 epinephrine) in securing mandibular first molar pulp anesthesia. Injections were given at least 1 week apart in 31 healthy adult volunteers. Electronic pulp testing was undertaken at baseline and at 2 minute intervals until 30 minutes postinjection. A successful outcome was recorded in the absence of pulp sensation on two consecutive maximal pulp tester stimulations (80 muA). 64.5% of articaine and 38.7% of lidocaine infiltrations were successful (p = 0.008). Articaine infiltration produced significantly more episodes of no response to maximum stimulation in first molars than lidocaine (236 and 129, respectively, p < 0.001). Mandibular buccal infiltration is more effective with 4% articaine with epinephrine compared to 2% lidocaine with epinephrine. Both injections were associated with mild discomfort.     

Pulpal anaesthesia for mandibular permanent first molar teeth: a double-blind randomized cross-over trial comparing buccal and buccal plus lingual infiltration injections in volunteers

AIM: To compare the efficacy of buccal and buccal plus lingual infiltration anaesthesia for permanent mandibular first molars. METHODOLOGY: Thirty one healthy adult volunteers received each of the following methods of anaesthesia for a mandibular first molar tooth in a randomised order, 1) Buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL and needle penetration lingually. 2) Buccal infiltration of 0.9 mL, plus lingual infiltration of 0.9 mL. Two percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was used. Electrical pulp testing was performed before, and every 2 minutes for 30 minutes after injection. A successful outcome was recorded as the absence of pulp sensation on two or more consecutive maximal pulp tester stimulations (80 microA). Injection discomfort was assessed using visual analogue scales. Data were compared with McNemar and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks tests. RESULTS: Buccal infiltration was successful in 38.7% of cases compared to 32.3% after combined infiltrations; the difference was not significant (P = 0.63). Buccal infiltration produced more episodes of no response to maximum stimulation than buccal and lingual infiltrations (129 and 114 respectively), this difference was not significant (P = 0.11). Peak anaesthetic effect occurred around 10-14 minutes after injection. There was no difference in injection discomfort between buccal injections of 0.9 mL and 1.8 mL of solution (P = 0.90). Lingual injection was more uncomfortable than lingual penetration (P = O.O02). CONCLUSIONS: Buccal and buccal plus lingual infiltrations did not differ in their efficacy in producing anaesthesia of permanent first molar teeth.     

The anesthetic efficacy of articaine in buccal infiltration of mandibular posterior teeth

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. METHODS: Each of 60 blinded adult subjects randomly received two buccal infiltrations at the first molar site: one cartridge of 4 percent articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine at one appointment and one cartridge of 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine at another appointment. The injections were administered during two separate appointments spaced at least one week apart. The authors used an electric pulp tester to assess the first and second molars and the first and second premolars for pulpal anesthesia in three-minute cycles for 60 minutes. They considered anesthesia to be successful when they obtained two consecutive pulp test readings of 80 (meaning the subject evidenced no response at the maximum output on the pulp tester). RESULTS: With the lidocaine formulation, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 45 to 67 percent. With the articaine formulation, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 75 to 92 percent. There was a significant difference (P < .05) in anesthetic success between the lidocaine and articaine formulations for each of the four teeth. Pulpal anesthesia declined slowly over 60 minutes with both formulations. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: For a mandibular buccal infiltration of the first molar, 4 percent articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine will result in a higher success rate than will 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, but the duration of pulpal anesthesia will decline over 60 minutes with either formulation.     

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).     

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.     

Anesthetic Efficacy of Supplemental Buccal and Lingual Infiltrations of Articaine and Lidocaine after an Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Patients with Irreversible Pulpitis

IntroductionThe success rate of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) decreases in patients with irreversible pulpitis. It was hypothesized that supplemental infiltration of lidocaine and articaine may improve the success rates.MethodsEighty-four adult volunteers, actively experiencing pain, participated in this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. All patients received standard IANB of 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine. Twenty-four patients did not receive supplemental infiltrations (control). Thirty patients received supplemental buccal and lingual infiltrations of 2% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and 30 patients received buccal and lingual infiltrations of 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine at 2 minutes after the IANB. Endodontic access preparation was initiated after 15 minutes of initial IANB. Pain during treatment was recorded by using a Heft Parker visual analog scale. Success was recorded as “none” or “mild” pain.ResultsStatistical analysis using nonparametric McNemer tests showed that supplemental buccal and lingual infiltration of 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine or 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine improved the success rate from 33% to 47% and 67%, respectively. Also the success rate with 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine was significantly more than 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine (p < 0.05).ConclusionsAlthough supplemental buccal and lingual infiltrations of 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine increased the success rate of the inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with irreversible pulpitis, none of the techniques provided acceptable success rates.     

Efficacy of Articaine versus Lidocaine as a Supplemental Buccal Infiltration in Mandibular Molars with Irreversible Pulpitis: A Prospective,Randomized, Double-blind Study

Introduction

Profound pulpal anesthesia in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis (IP) is often difficult to obtain and often requires supplemental injections after an ineffective inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the efficacy of 4% articaine with 2% lidocaine for supplemental buccal infiltrations (BIs) after an ineffective IANB in mandibular molars with IP. In addition, the use of articaine for IANB and intraosseous injections was investigated.

Methods

One hundred emergency patients diagnosed with IP of a mandibular molar were selected and received an IANB with 4% articaine. All injections were 1.7 mL with 1:100,000 epinephrine. All patients reported profound lip numbness after IANB. Patients with ineffective IANB (positive pulpal response to cold or pain on access) randomly received 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine as a supplemental BI. Endodontic access was initiated 5 minutes after deposition of the infiltration solution. Success was defined as no pain or no more than mild pain during endodontic access and instrumentation as measured on a visual analogue scale.

Results

Seventy-four patients failed to achieve pulpal anesthesia after IANB with 4% articaine, resulting in IANB success rate of 26%. Success rates for supplemental BIs were 62% for articaine and 37% for lidocaine (P < .05). This effect was most pronounced in second molars (P < .05).

Conclusions

Supplemental BI with articaine was significantly more effective than lidocaine. The IANB success rate of 4% articaine confirmed published data.     

Pulpal anaesthesia for mandibular central incisor teeth: a comparison of infiltration and intraligamentary injections

AIM: This study compared the anaesthetic efficacy of infiltration and intraligamentary injections in the permanent mandibular central incisor. METHODOLOGY: Twelve healthy volunteers received each of the following methods of anaesthesia for one of their mandibular central incisors over four visits. 1 Labial infiltration of 1.0 mL. 2 Lingual infiltration of 1.0 mL. 3 Labial infiltration of 0.5 mL plus lingual infiltration of 0.5 mL. 4 Intraligamentary injection of (118 mL.Two percent lidocaine with 1: 80 000 adrenaline and 30 gauge needles were used throughout. Electrical pulp testing was performed before injection and every 2 min up to 30 min after the injection. Injection discomfort was recorded on a 100-mm visual analogue scale. Data were compared with ANOVA, Student's t-test and chi2 tests. RESULTS: Anaesthesia varied between techniques(F = 9.3, P < 0.001). The incidence of anaesthesia at any time was as follows: 50% success for labial infiltration; 50% success for lingual infiltration: 92% success for combined labial and lingual infiltration; 0% success for intraligamentary injections (chi2 = 20; P < 0.001).The mean (+/-SD) VAS score for intraligamentary injection discomfort was 28 +/- 12 mm, for buccal infiltrations 17 +/- 8 mm and for lingual infiltrations 16 +16 mm. Intraligamentary injections were more uncomfortable than buccal (t = 3.7: P < 0.01) and lingual infiltrations (t = 2.67: P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The most reliable method of the techniques investigated for obtaining pulpal anaesthesia in mandibular permanent central incisors was a combination of labial and lingual infiltration. Intraligamentary injections were unreliable and were more uncomfortable than infiltrations in the mandibular central incisor region.     

Efficacy of buccal infiltration anaesthesia with articaine for extraction of mandibular molars: a clinical trial

It is hard to provide adequate anaesthesia by infiltration of lidocaine into the mandible because of the thick buccal cortex. An inferior alveolar nerve block is often used but has a high failure rate, which has led research workers to look for an anaesthetic agent that will anaesthetise the lower teeth by buccal infiltration alone. We have assessed the efficacy of buccal infiltration anaesthesia with articaine by designing a double-blind controlled clinical trial in 133 patients who required extraction of mandibular molars. They were randomly divided into two groups and given infiltration anaesthesia with either 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine by a single injection deep into the mucobuccal fold at the site of the tooth. After five minutes the mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual sides of the tooth were probed. Pain at this time or later during dissection of soft tissue by periosteal elevator was considered as failure, and an inferior alveolar nerve block was given. The amount of pain, and the number of patients who developed pain, were significantly greater in the group given 2% lidocaine (p < 0.001). The two groups did not differ significantly in age or sex. Articaine is more successful in providing adequate depth of anaesthesia, but its efficacy was not sufficient to replace an inferior alveolar nerve block for extraction of mandibular molars (Registration code: IRCT2016062627111N2).     

Efficacy of Articaine versus Lidocaine in Supplemental Infiltration for Mandibular First versus Second Molars with Irreversible Pulpitis: A Prospective,Randomized, Double-blind Clinical Trial

Introduction

Profound pulpal anesthesia is difficult to achieve in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis (IP). However, there are no published randomized controlled clinical trials comparing the success of supplemental buccal infiltration (BI) in mandibular first versus second molars with IP. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the efficacy of 4% articaine with 2% lidocaine for supplemental BIs in mandibular first versus second molars with IP after a failed inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). This study's sample was combined with data from a previous trial.

Anesthetic efficacy of four percent articaine for pulpal anesthesia by using inferior alveolar nerve block and buccal infiltration techniques in patients with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial

Introduction

The study was designed as a randomized double-blind trial to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) and infiltration anesthetic techniques to anesthetize mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis.

Methods

The study was composed of 2 test arms and 1 control arm. Subjects in the test arms received either a standard IANB or a buccal infiltration (B Infil) of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, whereas the subjects in the control arm received a standard IANB of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Subject’s self-reported pain response was recorded on Heft Parker Visual Analogue Scale after local anesthetic administration during access preparation and pulp extirpation.

Results

For statistical analysis Pearson χ², Student's paired t test, 1-way analysis of variance, and Friedman tests showed no significant difference in success rates among the 3 arms of the trial.

Conclusions

Although B Infil and IANB of 4% articaine were equally effective, B Infil can be considered a viable alterative in IANB for pulpal anesthesia in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis.     

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.     

Comparison of the efficacy of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 and 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 buccal infiltration for single maxillary molar extraction: a double-blind,randomised, clinical trial

The present study was designed to compare the efficiency of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 and 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 in providing adequate anaesthesia for maxillary molar extraction with buccal infiltration only. In this randomised, double-blind clinical trial, 139 patients who needed maxillary molars extracting were enrolled. Individuals were randomly divided into two groups of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 treated by buccal infiltration without palatal injection and 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 treated with the same method. Then, teeth were extracted and the pain assessed. During the extraction of teeth, 90.63% of patients in the lidocaine-treated group and 36% of patients in the articaine-treated group experienced pain (p<0.0001). In other words, the rates of successful anaesthesia with lidocaine and articaine buccal infiltration were 9.38% and 64%, respectively. Despite the better performance of articaine, it seems that some factors such as bone thickness and anatomical variations among individuals, besides the condition of the tooth, affects articaine’s level of efficiency in each case.     

EFFICACY OF 4% ARTICAINE BUCCAL INFILTRATION VERSUS INFERIOR ALVEOLAR NERVE BLOCK FOR MANDIBULAR MOLARS WITH SYMPTOMATIC IRREVERSIBLE PULPITIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Objectives:To compare the anesthetic efficacy of buccal infiltration (BI) using 4% articaine vs 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.Methods:PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched using MESH terms and specific keywords. Included articles were Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs), which compared 4% articaine BI vs conventional IANB in terms of the efficacy of pulpal anesthesia and success rate. The quality assessment of included studies was done according to the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Studies were quantitatively assessed using fixed or random effect models.Results:Out of 756 articles, 5 RCT studies were included with a total number of 500 patients: 231 in 4% articaine BI group, 150 in 2% lidocaine IANB group, and 119 in 4% articaine IANB group. Our meta-analysis results showed that patients anesthetized with 4% articaine BI had a similar success rate compared to 2% lidocaine IANB [pooled RD: 0.14 (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.29); P = .08]. Similarly, there was non-significant difference when compared to 4% articaine IANB [RD:-0.01 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.11; P = .86)]. Patients anesthetized with 4% articaine BI presented comparable pain scores compared to IANB (4% articaine or 2% lidocaine) [pooled MD: -0.14 (95% CI, -0.38 to 0.11); P = .27]. Regarding quality assessment, 3 studies were considered to have a low risk of bias, one study has an unclear risk of bias, and one study has a high risk of bias.Conclusion:4% articaine BI showed comparable results in terms of pain relief and success rate in comparison with 2% lidocaine IANB or 4% articaine IANB. However, due to the limited number and small sample size of included studies, these findings should be considered carefully, and further studies are required to confirm our findings.     

Efficacy of local anaesthetic solutions on the success of inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials

The management of pain during root canal treatment is important. The aim of this systematic review and network meta‐analysis was to identify the anaesthetic solution that would provide the best pulpal anaesthesia for inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) treating mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis. Two electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) were searched to identify studies up to October 2018. Randomized clinical trials comparing at least two anaesthetic solutions (lidocaine (lignocaine), articaine, bupivacaine, prilocaine or mepivacaine) used for IANB for treatment of irreversible pulpitis were included. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Pairwise meta‐analysis, network meta‐analysis using a random‐effects model, and SUCRA ranking were performed. The network meta‐analysis estimated the probability of each treatment performing best. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. In total, 11 studies (n = 750) were included in the meta‐analysis. The network meta‐analysis revealed that only mepivacaine significantly increased the success rate of IANB compared to lidocaine (RR, 1.42 [95% CI 1.04–1.95]). However, no significant differences in the success rate of IANB were observed between mepivacaine and other anaesthetic agents (articaine and bupivacaine). Of all anaesthetic agents, mepivacaine (SUCRA = 0.81) ranked first in increasing the success rate of IANB, followed by prilocaine (SUCRA = 0.62), articaine (SUCRA = 0.54), bupivacaine (SUCRA = 0.41) and lidocaine (SUCRA = 0.13). The overall quality of evidence was very low to moderate. In conclusion, based on the evidence from the randomized clinical trials included in this review, mepivacaine with epinephrine demonstrated the highest probability of providing effective pulpal anaesthesia using IANB for teeth with irreversible pulpitis compared to prilocaine, articaine, bupivacaine and lidocaine. Further, high‐quality clinical trials are needed to support the conclusion of this review.     

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.     

Articaine for Supplemental Buccal Mandibular Infiltration Anesthesia in Patients with Irreversible Pulpitis When the Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Fails

The purpose of this prospective study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental buccal infiltration injection of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in mandibular posterior teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis when the conventional inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block failed. Fifty-five emergency patients, diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis of a mandibular posterior tooth, received an IAN block and had moderate to severe pain on endodontic access. An infiltration of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was administered buccal to the tooth requiring endodontic treatment. Success of the infiltration injection was defined as no pain or mild pain on endodontic access or instrumentation. The results showed that anesthetic success was obtained in 58% of the mandibular posterior teeth. We can conclude that when the IAN block fails to provide profound pulpal anesthesia, the supplemental buccal infiltration injection of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine would be successful 58% of the time for mandibular posterior teeth in patients presenting with irreversible pulpitis. Unfortunately, the modest success rate would not provide predictable pulpal anesthesia for all patients requiring profound anesthesia.     

Efficacy of articaine and lidocaine in a primary intraligamentary injection administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of the intraligamentary injection of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, administered with computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system, in mandibular posterior teeth. STUDY DESIGN: Using a crossover design, intraligamentary injections of 1.4 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and of 1.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine were randomly administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system, in a double-blind manner on the mesial and distal aspects of a mandibular first molar, at 2 separate appointments to 51 subjects. A pulp tester was used to test for anesthesia, in 2-minute cycles for 60 minutes, of the mandibular first and second molars and second premolar. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings (highest output) were obtained within 20 minutes. RESULTS: Successful pulpal anesthesia was obtained 86% of the time for the first molar using the articaine solution and 74% of the time using the lidocaine solution. There were no significant differences (P > .05) between the articaine and lidocaine solutions. The mean onset times of pulpal anesthesia for the first molar were 1.3 minutes with articaine solution and 2.2 minutes with lidocaine solution. Duration of pulpal anesthesia for the first molar was 34 minutes for the articaine solution and 31 minutes for the lidocaine solution. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was similar to the efficacy of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for intraligamentary injections.     

Can buccal infiltration of articaine replace traditional inferior alveolar nerve block for the treatment of mandibular molars in pediatric patients?: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background It is unclear if buccal articaine infiltration can be used as an alternative to standard inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for treating mandibular molars in pediatric patients. Therefore, this study aimed to pool evidence to compare the efficacy of buccal infiltration of articaine vs IANB with lignocaine for pediatric dental procedures.Material and Methods We searched the PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the two techniques in pediatric patients and reporting the success of anesthesia and/or pain during treatment. PRISMA guidelines were followed.Results Seven RCTs were included. Pooled analysis of five studies indicated no statistically significant difference in the success rates of the two anesthetic techniques (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.13, 7.96; I2=69%, p=0.98). Meta-analysis of data from the four studies demonstrated no statistically significant difference in pain during the procedure with buccal infiltration of articaine or IANB with lignocaine (SMD: 0.62; 95% CI: -1.37, 0.12; I2=88%, p=0.10).Conclusions Evidence suggests that buccal infiltration of articaine is a viable alternative to IANB with lignocaine in pediatric patients for treating mandibular molars. Based on the confidence intervals, there may be a tendency of higher success rates with buccal infiltration of articaine. Key words:Lignocaine, articaine, primary dentition, children, molars.