A Prospective,Randomized, Double-blind Comparison of 2% Lidocaine With 1:100,000 and 1:50,000 Epinephrine and 3% Mepivacaine for Maxillary Infiltrations

IntroductionThe purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind crossover study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 and 1:50,000 epinephrine and 3% mepivacaine in maxillary lateral incisors and first molars.MethodsSixty subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, maxillary lateral incisor and first molar infiltrations of 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 2% lidocaine with 1:50,000 epinephrine, and 3% mepivacaine at three separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. The teeth were pulp tested in 3-minute cycles for a total of 60 minutes.Results and ConclusionsAnesthetic success and the onset of pulpal anesthesia were not significantly different between 2% lidocaine with either 1:100,000 or 1:50,000 epinephrine and 3% mepivacaine for the lateral incisor and first molar. Increasing the epinephrine concentration from 1:100,000 to 1:50,000 in a 2% lidocaine formulation significantly decreased pulpal anesthesia of short duration for the lateral incisor but not the first molar. For both the lateral incisor and first molar, 3% mepivacaine significantly increased pulpal anesthesia of short duration compared with 2% lidocaine with either 1:100,000 or 1:50,000 epinephrine.     

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.     

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

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind crossover study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in maxillary lateral incisors and first molars. Eighty subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, maxillary lateral incisor and first molar infiltrations of one cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine at two separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. In maxillary lateral incisors, articaine exhibited a significantly higher anesthetic success rate of 88% when compared with a 62% success rate with lidocaine. In maxillary first molars, articaine had a similar success rate to lidocaine (78% vs 73%), and there was no significant difference between the two solutions. In conclusion, a maxillary infiltration of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine statistically improved anesthetic success when compared with 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in the lateral incisor but not in the first molar.     

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 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.     

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.     

Anesthetic efficacy of the palatal-anterior superior alveolar injection

BACKGROUND: A single palatal-anterior superior alveolar, or P-ASA, injection has been reported to provide pulpal anesthesia of the four maxillary incisors and usually the canines. The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind study to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 3 percent mepivacaine using a computer-assisted injection system to administer the P-ASA injection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a double-blind manner, the authors used a crossover design to administer randomly P-ASA injections of 1.4 milliliters of the lidocaine solution and 1.4 mL of the mepivacaine solution using the computer-assisted injection system at two appointments to 40 subjects. They used a pulp tester to test for anesthesia of the central incisors, lateral incisors and canines in four-minute cycles for 72 minutes. Anesthesia was considered successful when two consecutive maximum readings (80 readings) with the pulp tester were obtained. RESULTS: For the lidocaine solution, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 32 to 58 percent for the six anterior teeth. For the mepivacaine solution, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 22 to 38 percent. Except for the left canine, the lidocaine solution was significantly more likely to result in pulpal anesthesia than the use of the mepivacaine solution. The duration of pulpal anesthesia, for both solutions, declined steadily over 72 minutes. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Using the computer-assisted injection system for the P-ASA injection, we concluded that the rather modest-to-low success rates of the lidocaine and mepivacaine solutions would not ensure predictable pulpal anesthesia of the four maxillary incisors and the canines.     

A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of bupivacaine and lidocaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve blocks. Using a crossover design, inferior alveolar nerve blocks were randomly administered, in a double-blind manner, using 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, at two separate appointments, to 39 subjects. A pulp tester was used to test for anesthesia until two consecutive readings of less than 80 were recorded on at least three of the five experimental teeth. Anesthesia was considered successful when two consecutive 80 readings were obtained within 15 min and the 80 reading was continuously sustained for 60 min. Anesthetic success was significantly improved for all teeth except the first molar with the lidocaine solution. Pulpal anesthesia averaged 4 hr for bupivacaine versus 2 hr and 24 min for lidocaine.     

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.     

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.     

An evaluation of volumes and concentrations of lidocaine in human inferior alveolar nerve block

The purpose of this study was to evaluate, with the electric pulp tester, the anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 3.6 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and 1.8 ml of 4% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in human inferior alveolar nerve block. Thirty subjects randomly received each of the solutions at three successive appointments. The first molar, canine, lateral incisor, and contralateral canine were tested with the pulp tester at various time intervals up to 55 min. Complete anesthesia was defined as an 80/80 reading with the pulp tester. No significant differences in anesthetic success or failure were found among the three solutions. Potential anesthetic problems (failure, noncontinuous anesthesia, slow onset, and short duration) occurred in 43 to 57% of the molars, in 43 to 60% of the canines, and in 57 to 80% of the lateral incisors. Complete anesthesia in the mandible is a meaningful clinical problem.     

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.     

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.     

A comparison of articaine and lidocaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve blocks. Using a crossover design, inferior alveolar nerve blocks were randomly administered, in a double-blind manner, using 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, at two separate appointments, to 57 subjects. A pulp tester was used to test for anesthesia, in 4-min cycles for 60 min, of the molars, premolars, central, and lateral incisors. Anesthesia was considered successful when two consecutive 80 readings were obtained within 15 min and the 80 reading was continuously sustained for 60 min. Using the articaine solution, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 4 to 54% from the central incisor to the second molar. Using the lidocaine solution, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 2 to 48%. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the articaine and lidocaine solutions. We concluded that 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was similar to 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve blocks.     

A Prospective,Randomized, Double-blind Comparison of the Anesthetic Efficacy of Two Percent Lidocaine with 1:100,000 and 1:50,000 Epinephrine and Three Percent Mepivacaine in the Intraoral,Infraorbital Nerve Block

IntroductionThe purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 2% lidocaine with 1:50,000 epinephrine, and 3% mepivacaine in the intraoral, infraorbital nerve block.MethodsForty subjects randomly received intraoral, infraorbital nerve blocks by using a cartridge of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 or 1:50,000 epinephrine and a cartridge of 3% mepivacaine at 3 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. The anteriors, premolars, and first molar were pulp tested in 4-minute cycles for a total of 60 minutes.Results and ConclusionsThe intraoral, infraorbital nerve block was ineffective in providing profound pulpal anesthesia of the maxillary central incisor, lateral incisor, and first molar. Successful pulpal anesthesia of the canine and first and second premolars ranged from 75%–92% by using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 and 1:50,000 epinephrine. However, pulpal anesthesia did not last for 60 minutes. The use of 3% mepivacaine provided a shorter duration of anesthesia than the lidocaine formulations with epinephrine in the canines and premolars.     

A comparison of the local anesthetic efficacy of the extraoral versus the intraoral infraorbital nerve block

BackgroundThe efficacy of the extraoral infraorbital nerve block has not been studied sufficiently to ensure its appropriate clinical use. To compare the local anesthetic efficacy of the extraoral versus the intraoral infraorbital nerve block, the authors conducted a prospective, randomized crossover study.MethodsForty adult participants randomly received extraoral infraorbital nerve blocks of 1.8 milliliters of 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine at one appointment and intraoral infraorbital nerve blocks of 1.8 mL of 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine at another appointment in a crossover design. After administering the injections, the authors used an electric pulp tester to assess the maxillary central and lateral incisors, canine, premolars and first molar for pulpal anesthesia in four-minute cycles for 60 minutes. They considered anesthesia to be successful when the participant had no response to two consecutive 80 readings (the maximum output) with the electric pulp tester.ConclusionsThe authors found that the extraoral and intraoral infraorbital nerve blocks were ineffective in providing profound pulpal anesthesia of the maxillary central incisor (15 percent success rate) and lateral incisor (22 percent success rate). The pulpal anesthesia success rate was 92 percent for the canine for both types of nerve blocks, 80 to 90 percent for first and second premolars and 65 to 70 percent for the first molar, with no significant differences (P < .05) between the two nerve blocks. Pulpal anesthesia did not last for an hour in any of the teeth. Needle insertion pain and postoperative sequelae were more common after the extraoral infraorbital nerve block was administered.Clinical ImplicationsBoth nerve blocks would be ineffective in the central and lateral incisors. Both nerve blocks would be somewhat successful in the canine and premolars but not in the first molar.     

A double-blind comparison of 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 0.5% levobupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine for the inferior alveolar nerve block

This double-blind cross-over study compared the anesthetic success and onset and duration of lip and pulpal anesthesia of 0.5% bupivacaine and levobupivacaine solutions, both with 1:200,000 epinephrine, when administered for inferior alveolar nerve anesthesia. Thirty healthy volunteers were randomly anesthetized using one of the solutions. The inferior canine, second premolar, and molar were tested with electric stimulation. The pulpal anesthetic success rates for bupivacaine and levobupivacaine were 80% and 76.66%, respectively, for molars, 76.66% (both solutions) for premolars, and 70% (both solutions) for canines. At least 250 minutes of pulpal anesthesia was achieved. There were no significant differences between the solutions considering the measured parameters (P > .05). Because of the similar anesthetic behavior of the 2 solutions in this study and the low toxicity related in the literature for levobupivacaine, there is justification for replacing bupivacaine with levobupivacaine for inferior alveolar nerve local anesthesia.     

Pulpal anesthesia dependent on epinephrine dose in 2% lidocaine. A randomized controlled double-blind crossover study.

We studied the discrepancy in the results published on the dependence of the duration of pulpal nerve anesthesia on the concentration of epinephrine in 2% lidocaine. The increase in pain threshold of the pulpal nerve was measured before and after injection of lidocaine alone and lidocaine with epinephrine concentrations of 1:200,000, 1:100,000, or 1:50,000 into the mucobuccal aspect adjacent to the apex of the maxillary right incisor. The study was done in a random manner with a double-blind crossover design. The pulpal nerve was stimulated with negative rectangular electrical pulses of up to -167 V with 100 Hz and a pulse width of 0.6 msec. The results show a relationship between the 1:200,000 and 1:100,000 epinephrine concentrations and the success and duration of anesthesia. The onset of anesthesia was independent of the catecholamine content of the solution.     

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).     

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.