Comparative evaluation of local infiltration of articaine, articaine plus ketorolac, and dexamethasone on anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block with lidocaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis

Introduction

The inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) has a poor success rate in patients with irreversible pulpitis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of ketorolac and dexamethasone infiltration along with standard IANB on the success rate.

Methods

Ninety-four adult volunteers who were actively experiencing pain participated in this prospective, randomized, double-blind study. All patients received standard IANB of 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine. Twenty-four patients did not receive any supplemental infiltrations (control). Twenty-four patients received supplemental buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 ephinephrine, and 24 patients received supplemental buccal infiltration of 1 mL/4 mg of dexamethasone. It was planned to give supplemental buccal infiltration of 1 mL/30 mg of ketorolac tromethamine in 26 patients, but the first 2 patients experienced severe injection pain after ketorlac infiltration and were excluded from the study. In the subsequent patients, 0.9 mL of 4% articaine was infiltrated before injecting ketorolac. 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.

Results

Statistical analysis was done by using nonparametric χ² tests. Control IANB gave 39% success rate. Buccal infiltration of articaine and articaine plus ketorolac significantly increased the success rate to 54% and 62%, respectively (P < .05). Supplementary dexamethasone infiltration gave 45% success rate, which was insignificant with control IANB.

Conclusions

Articaine and ketorolac infiltration can increase the success rate of IANB in patients with irreversible pulpitis. None of the tested techniques gave 100% success rate.     

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.     

Efficacy and Safety of Pulpal Anesthesia Strategies during Endodontic Treatment of Permanent Mandibular Molars with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

IntroductionSeveral strategies have been investigated for achieving successful pulpal anesthesia during endodontic treatment of mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. However, comprehensive evaluation and identification of the most efficacious and safe intervention are lacking. We aimed to determine this using network meta-analysis.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, and Scopus databases were searched. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Eligible randomized controlled trials were meta-analyzed to estimate the treatment effects (odd ratios [ORs]; 95% credible interval (CrI) and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA)]. CINeMA software (University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland) was used to assess the quality of results.ResultsThirty-seven interventions from 46 studies were identified. Compared with the common practice of an inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% lidocaine, a supplemental intraosseous injection was ranked the most efficacious with very low to moderate confidence (2% lidocaine + preoperative nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs] + acetaminophen [OR = 74; 95% CrI, 15–470; SUCRA = 97%], 2% lidocaine + preoperative NSAIDs [OR = 46; 95% CrI, 8–420; SUCRA = 94%], 2% lidocaine [OR = 33; 95% CrI, 14–80; SUCRA = 93%], 2% lidocaine + preoperative opioids + acetaminophen [OR = 20; 95% CrI, 4.4–98; SUCRA = 86%], and 4% articaine [OR = 20; 95% CrI, 6.3–96; SUCRA = 87%]) followed by supplemental buccal and lingual infiltrations using 4% articaine + preoperative NSAIDs (OR = 18; 95% CrI, 6–56; SUCRA = 86%; very low confidence). No major safety concerns were reported.ConclusionsVery low- to moderate-quality evidence suggests intraosseous injection using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or buccal and lingual infiltrations of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine are superior strategies to achieve pulpal anesthesia during endodontic treatment of mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Preoperative NSAIDs or opioids with or without acetaminophen may increase the efficacy of these injections.     

A prospective, randomized, single-blind comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of posterior superior alveolar nerve blocks, buccal infiltrations, and buccal plus palatal infiltrations in patients with irreversible pulpitis

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the anesthetic efficacy of posterior superior alveolar (PSA) nerve blocks, buccal infiltrations, and buccal plus palatal infiltrations with 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine in maxillary first molars with irreversible pulpitis.

Methods

Ninety-four adult patients participated in this prospective, randomized, single-blinded study. The patients were divided into 3 treatment groups on a random basis. Twenty-eight patients received a PSA nerve block, 33 patients received buccal infiltrations, and 33 patients received buccal plus palatal infiltrations with 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine. Endodontic access preparation was initiated 15 minutes after injection. Pain during treatment was recorded using a Heft-Parker visual analog scale. Success was recorded as “none” or “mild” pain.

Results

Statistical analysis using nonparametric chi-square tests revealed that there was no statistical difference between the anesthetic success of PSA nerve blocks (64%), buccal infiltrations (54%), and buccal plus palatal infiltrations (70%).

Conclusions

None of the tested methods gave 100% anesthetic success rates in maxillary first molars with irreversible pulpitis.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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

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

Success Rate of 3 Injection Methods with Articaine for Mandibular First Molars with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: A CONSORT Randomized Double-blind Clinical Trial

Introduction

Previous studies have reported that it is difficult to obtain proper anesthesia in mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, and supplemental injections are usually unavoidable. The aim of the present study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of articaine in mandibular first molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis with 3 injection methods: an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB), an IANB with an intraligamentary injection, and an IANB with buccal infiltration before initiating the endodontic treatment.

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.     

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.     

Anesthetic Success Using Nitrous Oxide and a Combination of Lidocaine/Clonidine for the Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block and the Effects on Blood Pressure and Pulse in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: A Prospective,Randomized, Double-blind Study

IntroductionThe pulpal anesthetic success rates for an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) alone in patients presenting with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis are less than adequate. Nitrous oxide and clonidine have shown increases in IANB success when administered individually, but their success has not been evaluated when used together. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to determine the effect of nitrous oxide/oxygen plus an IANB using lidocaine/clonidine on the success of the IANB in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and to evaluate the effect of clonidine on blood pressure and pulse.MethodsSixty-two emergency patients experiencing moderate to severe pain and a diagnosis of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis were enrolled. Subjects were randomly divided into 2 groups and received nitrous oxide/oxygen and an IANB using 2% lidocaine with either 27 μg clonidine or 18 μg epinephrine as vasoconstrictors. Blood pressure and pulse were recorded before and during the emergency endodontic treatment. Anesthetic success was defined as no or mild pain upon access and instrumentation of the canals.ResultsThe pulpal anesthetic success rate in both treatments was 58%, with no significant difference between the groups. There was no statistically significant difference in pulse or systolic blood pressure with the use of clonidine compared with epinephrine. Diastolic blood pressure was significant.ConclusionsThe use of nitrous/oxide plus the addition of lidocaine/clonidine for the IANB in teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis resulted in no statistically significant difference in anesthetic success of the IANB. There were no statistically significant differences in pulse or systolic blood pressure with the use of clonidine compared with epinephrine; diastolic blood pressure was significant.     

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.     

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。     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

Different anesthetics on the efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with irreversible pulpitis: A network systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThe authors of this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of different anesthetics on the efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in patients with irreversible pulpitis.Types of Studies ReviewedThe authors conducted a search of MEDLINE databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and Brazilian Library of Dentistry). There was no restriction on publication year or idiom. The gray literature was also explored. The authors included only randomized clinical trials that compared different anesthetics in the efficacy of IANB in patients with irreversible pulpitis. The risk of bias was evaluated by using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. A random-effects Bayesian mixed treatment comparison model was used to compare different anesthetic solutions in randomized clinical trials with low or unclear risk of bias. Heterogeneity was assessed by using Cochran Q test and I² statistics. Quality of evidence was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.ResultsA total of 7,981 studies were identified; only 16 met the eligibility criteria, and they were all meta-analyzed. A significant difference was observed in the pair lidocaine versus articaine, with higher success with articaine (risk ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.63 to 0.88) in the mixed treatment comparison analysis, as this comparison was graded as high-quality evidence. The probability of success for each treatment was 73% for articaine, 57% for prilocaine, 55% for mepivacaine, 53% for bupivacaine, and 12% for lidocaine. This ranking was considered high quality of evidence.Conclusions and Practical ImplicationsThe use of articaine can increase the IANB success rate in patients with irreversible pulpitis. Among the anesthetic solutions, lidocaine was the least effective.