Anesthetic efficacy of articaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients with irreversible pulpitis

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine to 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients experiencing irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth. Seventy-two emergency patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis of a mandibular posterior tooth randomly received, in a double-blind manner, 2.2 ml of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2.2 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine using a conventional inferior alveolar nerve block. Endodontic access was begun 15 min after solution deposition, and all patients were required to have profound lip numbness. Success was defined as none or mild pain (Visual Analogue Scale recordings) on endodontic access or initial instrumentation. The success rate for the inferior alveolar nerve block using articaine was 24% and for the lidocaine solution success was 23%. There was no significant difference (p = 0.89) between the articaine and lidocaine solutions. Neither solution resulted in an acceptable rate of anesthetic success in patients with irreversible pulpitis.     

Articaine for supplemental intraosseous anesthesia in patients with irreversible pulpitis

The purpose of this study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy and heart rate effect of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for supplemental intraosseous injection in mandibular posterior teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis. Thirty-seven emergency patients, diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis of a mandibular posterior tooth, received an inferior alveolar nerve block and had moderate-to-severe pain upon endodontic access. The Stabident system was used to administer 1.8 ml of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Success of the intraosseous injection was defined as none or mild pain upon endodontic access or initial instrumentation. The results demonstrated that anesthetic success was obtained in 86% (32 of 37) of the patients. Maximum mean heart rate was increased 32 beats/minute during the intraosseous injection. We can conclude that when the inferior alveolar nerve block fails to provide profound pulpal anesthesia, the intraosseous injection of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine would be successful 86% of the time in achieving pulpal anesthesia in mandibular posterior teeth of patients presenting with irreversible pulpitis.     

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.     

Anesthetic efficacy of articaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients with symptomatic versus asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis

This study sought to determine the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth and if individual patient factors, pulpal disease characteristics, and previous medication are correlated to local anesthetic success. A second objective was to determine the specificity and sensibility of a cold test for prediction of anesthetic success prior to endodontic treatment. Seventy patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth received 1.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) using a metal guide. The anesthetic solution was injected with a computer-preprogrammed delivery system for local anesthesia. Endodontic access was begun 15 minutes after solution deposition; later, patients rated their discomfort using the visual analog scale (VAS). The success rate for the IA NB using articaine was 64.2% in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and 86.9% in patients with asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Cold test prior to root canal treatment had a specificity and sensibility of 12.5% and 87.1%, respectively. The anesthetic efficacy of articaine in irreversible pulpitis is moderately acceptable, and anesthetic success increases when the patient has been premedicated with NSAIDs. The cold test appears to be a favorable indicator for predicting anesthetic success.     

Anesthetic effectiveness of the supplemental intraligamentary injection, administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system, in patients with irreversible pulpitis

The purpose of this study was to determine the anesthetic effectiveness of the supplemental intraligamentary injection, administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system, in mandibular posterior teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis when the conventional inferior alveolar nerve block failed. Fifty-four emergency patients, diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis of a mandibular posterior tooth, received an inferior alveolar nerve block and had moderate to severe pain upon endodontic access. A computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system was then used to administer intraligamentary injections of 1.4 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Success of the intraligamentary injection was defined as none or mild pain upon endodontic access or initial instrumentation. The results demonstrated that anesthetic success was obtained in 56% (30 of 54) of the patients. We concluded that when the inferior alveolar nerve block failed to provide profound pulpal anesthesia in mandibular posterior teeth of patients presenting with irreversible pulpitis, the intraligamentary injection administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system was successful approximately 56% of the time.     

Anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental X-tip intraosseous injection in patients with irreversible pulpitis

The purpose of this study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental intraosseous injection, using the X-tip system in an apical location, in mandibular posterior teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis when the conventional inferior alveolar nerve block failed. Thirty-three emergency patients, diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis of a mandibular posterior tooth, received an inferior alveolar nerve block and had moderate-to-severe pain on endodontic access. The X-tip system was used to administer 1.8 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. The X-tip injection site was 3- to 7-mm apical to the mucogingival junction of the affected tooth. Success of the X-tip intraosseous injection was defined as none or mild pain on endodontic access or initial instrumentation. The results of this study demonstrated that 6 of 33 (18%) X-tip injections resulted in backflow of anesthetic solution into the oral cavity; none were successful in obtaining anesthesia. Twenty-seven of the remaining 33 X-tip injections (82%) were successful. We conclude that when the inferior alveolar nerve block fails to provide profound pulpal anesthesia, the X-tip system, when used in an apical location and when there was no backflow of the anesthetic solution into the oral cavity, was successful in achieving pulpal anesthesia in mandibular posterior teeth of patients presenting with irreversible pulpitis.     

Anesthetic efficacy of lidocaine/meperidine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients with irreversible pulpitis

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blind study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of lidocaine with epinephrine to lidocaine plus meperidine with epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IAN) in patients with mandibular posterior teeth experiencing irreversible pulpitis. Forty-eight emergency patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis of a mandibular posterior tooth randomly received, in a single-blind manner, 36 mg of lidocaine with 18 mug epinephrine or 36 mg of lidocaine with 18 mug of epinephrine plus 36 mg meperidine with 18 mug epinephrine, using a conventional inferior alveolar nerve block. Endodontic access was begun 15 minutes after solution deposition, and all patients were required to have profound lip numbness. Success was defined as no or mild pain (visual analog scale recordings) upon endodontic access or initial instrumentation. The success rate for the inferior alveolar nerve block using the lidocaine solution was 26%, and for the lidocaine/meperidine solution, the success rate was 12%. There was no significant difference (p = 0.28) between the two solutions. In conclusion, for mandibular posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis, the addition of 36 mg of meperidine to a lidocaine solution administered in a conventional IAN block did not improve the success rate over a standard lidocaine solution.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

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).     

不同剂量阿替卡因对不可复性牙髓炎下牙槽神经阻滞麻醉效果的比较

目的:本研究对仅有刺激痛的早期不可复性牙髓炎的患者在下牙槽阻滞麻醉时,比较使用1.7 mL阿替卡因和3.4 mL阿替卡因的麻醉成功率的差异。方法:将76名患者随机分为两组,1.7 mL组和3.4 mL组(两组都为4%阿替卡因与1∶100000的肾上腺素),进行下牙槽阻滞麻醉。根管治疗过程中,使用Heft-Parker视觉模拟量表(VAS)记录患者的疼痛值。对数据进行T检验和卡方检验。结果:72名患者纳入了研究结果,两组的成功率都没有达到100%,组间有显著差异(P<0.001),3.4 mL组有较高的成功率74.4%,1.7 mL组成功率为27.8%。结论:在对下颌第一磨牙进行下牙槽阻滞时,提高阿替卡因的注射剂量可以显著提高麻醉的成功率,但也达不到100%的麻醉成功。     

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.     

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 significance of needle deflection in success of the inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with irreversible pulpitis

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, blinded study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of the conventional inferior alveolar nerve block, administered with the needle bevel oriented away from the mandibular ramus, to the bidirectional-needle-rotation technique, administered using the computer-assisted Wand II anesthesia system, in patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis. Sixty-four emergency patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis of a mandibular posterior tooth randomly received, in a blinded manner, 2.8 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine using either a conventional inferior alveolar nerve block or a bidirectional-needle-rotational technique using the Wand II injection system. The conventional inferior alveolar nerve block was administered with the needle bevel oriented away from the mandibular ramus so the needle would deflect inward toward the mandibular foramen. The bidirectional-needle-rotation technique was administered by rotating the Wand handpiece assembly in a clockwise-counterclockwise movement (like an endodontic hand file) to minimize needle deflection. Endodontic access was begun 17 min after solution deposition, and all patients were required to have profound lip numbness. Success was defined as none or mild pain (VAS recordings) on endodontic access or initial instrumentation. The results of this study showed no significant differences (p > 0.05) between the success rates of the two techniques. The conventional inferior alveolar nerve block, with the needle bevel oriented away from the mandibular ramus, had a 50% success rate. The bidirectional-needle-rotation technique with the Wand II had a 56% success rate. Neither technique resulted in an acceptable rate of anesthetic success in patients with irreversible pulpitis.     

Anesthetic efficacy of the Gow-Gates injection and maxillary infiltration with articaine and lidocaine for irreversible pulpitis

The aim of this randomized, double-blinded study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (AE) with 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (LE) for Gow-Gates blocks and maxillary infiltrations in patients experiencing irreversible pulpitis in mandibular and maxillary posterior teeth. Forty patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis of a posterior tooth randomly received either AE or LE by using a Gow-Gates injection or maxillary infiltration. Endodontic access was initiated after no response to Endo-ice 15 minutes after solution deposition. Success was defined as none to mild pain on a visual analogue scale after access. Chi-square and analysis of variance statistical tests were used to analyze the data. Successful endodontic treatment substantially reduced the assessment of pulpitis pain by patients (analysis of variance, P < .0001). Overall anesthetic success in both dental arches was 87.5%. Anesthetic success was not influenced by tooth arch (chi(2), P > .7515) or gender (chi(2), P > .1115). AE proved to be as effective but not superior to LE (P > .6002). These results demonstrated the similar anesthetic effectiveness of AE and LE when used during the endodontic treatment of teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis.     

Effect of a Combination of Nitrous Oxide and Intraligamentary Injection on the Success of the Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis

IntroductionThe purpose of this prospective study was to determine the effect of a combination of nitrous oxide/oxygen and 1 set of supplemental intraligamentary/periodontal ligament (PDL) injections followed by a second set of PDL injections on anesthetic success in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP).MethodsNinety-four patients with a mandibular posterior tooth diagnosed with SIP received nitrous oxide/oxygen and an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Patients rated the pain of PDL injections and endodontic access on a visual analog scale. If moderate to severe pain was felt during treatment, the operator administered 1 set of supplemental PDL injections with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. If moderate to severe pain was felt again during treatment, the operator administered a second set of supplemental PDL injections. Anesthetic success was defined as having no to mild pain during endodontic treatment.ResultsThe success of the IANB with nitrous oxide was 44% (95% confidence interval [CI], 34%–54%). The overall anesthetic success rate (IANB with PDL injections) was increased from 69% (95% CI, 60%–78%) with 1 set of PDL injections to 80% (95% CI, 72%–88%) with a second set of PDL injections.ConclusionsAlthough the second set of PDL injections increased anesthetic success, it was not sufficient to ensure complete pulpal anesthesia.     

Comparison of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine when used as a supplemental anesthetic

A randomized, double-blind trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine when used as a supplemental anesthetic. Forty-eight patients with irreversible pulpitis requiring supplemental buccal infiltration for endodontic therapy were given either 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in a double-blind manner. A standard VAS pain scale was used to evaluate the patient's response to pain after a supplemental injection. The mean VAS score after supplemental anesthesia was 15.28 for 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 19.70 for 2% lidocaine with 1:00,000 epinephrine. The mean percentage change in VAS score was 70.5 and 62.2% for articaine and lidocaine, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the VAS pain score between 4% articaine with 1:00,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:00,000 epinephrine as a supplemental anesthetic.     

The pulpal anesthetic efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine in dentistry: a meta-analysis

BackgroundThe authors evaluated published evidence from controlled clinical trials regarding the efficacy of two local anesthetic solutions in providing successful pulpal anesthesia.MethodsThe authors searched MEDLINE and Embase databases to identify peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials in which researchers directly compared articaine and lidocaine local anesthetic solutions in adult participants. They extracted study characteristics and outcomes data as a basis for meta-analysis. They completed subgroup analyses for both infiltration and mandibular inferior alveolar block anesthetic techniques.ResultsArticaine solutions had a probability of achieving anesthetic success superior to that of lidocaine, with an odds ratio of 2.44 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 1.59–3.76; P < .0001). The greater odds ratio for articaine increased to 3.81 (95 percent CI, 2.71–5.36; P < .00001) when the authors analyzed only infiltration data. There was weaker, but still significant, evidence of articaine’s being superior to lidocaine for mandibular block anesthesia, with an odds ratio of 1.57 (95 percent CI, 1.12–2.21; P = .009), and no difference when the authors considered only symptomatic teeth.Clinical ImplicationsResearch evidence supports using articaine versus lidocaine for achieving pulpal anesthesia when the infiltration mode of administration is used. It is premature to recommend articaine for mandibular block anesthesia in cases involving irreversible pulpitis.