Efficacy of articaine vs lignocaine in maxillary and mandibular infiltration and block anesthesia in the dental treatments of adults: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

The aim of the present systematic review and meta‐analysis was to address the following Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question: Is the efficacy of articaine better than lignocaine in adults requiring dental treatment? Four percent articaine was compared with 2% lignocaine for maxillary and mandibular infiltrations and block anesthesia, and with the principal outcome measures of anesthetic success. Using RevMan software, the weighted anesthesia success rates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and compared using a random‐effects model. For combined studies, articaine was more likely to achieve successful anesthesia than lignocaine (N = 18, odds ratio [OR]: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.45‐2.56, P < 0.00001, I² = 32%). Maxillary and mandibular infiltration studies showed obvious superiority of articaine to lignocaine (N = 8, OR: 2.50, 95% CI: 1.51‐4.15, P = 0.0004, I² = 41%). Maxillary infiltration subgroup analysis showed no significant difference between articaine and lignocaine (N = 5, OR: 1.69, 95% CI: 0.88‐3.23, P = 0.11, I² = 19%). For combined mandibular anesthesia studies, articaine was superior to lignocaine (N = 14, OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.45‐2.72, P < 0.0001, I² = 32%), with further subgroup analysis showing significant differences in both mandibular block anesthesia (N = 11, OR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.19‐2.03, P = 0.001), I² = 0%) and mandibular infiltration (N = 3, OR: 3.87, 95% CI: 2.62‐5.72, P < 0.00001, I² = 0%), indicating that articaine is more effective than lignocaine in providing anesthetic success in routine dental procedures.     

Articaine buccal infiltration enhances the effectiveness of lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block

Aim  To compare mandibular tooth pulpal anaesthesia and reported discomfort following lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with and without supplementary articaine buccal infiltration.
Methodology  In this prospective randomized double-blind cross-over study, thirty-six healthy adult volunteers received two IANB injections of 2 mL lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1 : 80 000 over two visits. At one visit, an infiltration of 2 mL of articaine 4% with epinephrine 1 : 100 000 was administered in the mucobuccal fold opposite a mandibular first molar. At the other visit, a dummy injection was performed. Injection discomfort was recorded on 100 mm visual analogue scales. Pulpal anaesthesia of first molar, premolar, and lateral incisor teeth was assessed with an electronic pulp tester until 45 min post-injection. A successful outcome was recorded in the absence of sensation on two or more consecutive maximal pulp tester stimulations. Data were analysed using McNemar and Student's t -tests.
Results  The IANB with supplementary articaine infiltration produced more success than IANB alone in first molars (33 volunteers vs. 20 volunteers respectively, P  < 0.001), premolars (32 volunteers vs. 24 volunteers respectively, P  = 0.021) and lateral incisors (28 volunteers vs. 7 volunteers respectively, P  < 0.001). Buccal infiltration with articaine or dummy injection produced less discomfort than IANB injection ( t  = 4.1, P  < 0.001; t  = 3.0, P  = 0.005 respectively).
Conclusions  The IANB injection supplemented with articaine buccal infiltration was more successful than IANB alone for pulpal anaesthesia in mandibular teeth. Articaine buccal infiltration or dummy buccal infiltration was more comfortable than IANB.     

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).     

4%阿替卡因与2%利多卡因对上后牙不可复性牙髓炎患者麻醉效果的比较

对40例上颌后牙不可复性牙髓炎患者分组后分别使用4%阿替卡因与2%利多卡因进行颊侧注射麻醉。比较两药在开髓时的麻醉成功率。结果显示阿替卡因与利多卡因组间存在明显差异：4%阿替卡因在上后牙的颊侧注射麻醉中效果优于2%利多卡因。     

Anesthetic Efficacy of a Combination of 4% Prilocaine/2% Lidocaine with Epinephrine for the Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block: A Prospective,Randomized, Double-blind Study

Introduction

Prilocaine plain has a high pH and concentration (4%), which could decrease the pain of injection and increase success. The purpose of this study was to compare pain associated with anesthetic solution deposition and the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with the combination of prilocaine and lidocaine versus a lidocaine and lidocaine combination when used for inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANBs).

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 epinephrine‐free articaine compared to articaine with epinephrine (1:100 000) for maxillary infiltration,a randomised clinical trial

The selection of local anaesthetic in dental practice is essential to the patient′s comfort and the success of the treatment. Many patients prefer anaesthesia even for short treatments. Articaine is a local anaesthetic commonly used for dental practice. The duration of the effect of articaine on the nerve fibres is not yet precisely reported. This study was aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of 4% articaine with and without epinephrine in treatment of occlusal caries. Thirty healthy patients were included in this randomised double‐blind study. Each subject received 4% articaine with and without epinephrine (1:100 000). Maxillary infiltration was used for occlusal caries of the maxillary premolars on right and left sides. Quantitative sensory testing (QST) was performed in the innervation area of the infraorbital nerve, and pulp vitality test was performed on restoration‐free canines. Duration of anaesthesia was longer when articaine with epinephrine was used. Articaine without epinephrine showed faster recovery of sensory blockade compared to articaine with epinephrine. The epinephrine‐containing agent, when compared to the plain articaine solution, showed significantly stronger and longer anaesthetic efficacy on the soft tissue by all parameters of QST. Articaine with epinephrine caused a more reliable pulpal analgesia. A pain‐free treatment of the soft tissue up to 15 minutes can be performed under the vasoconstrictor‐free anaesthetic without causing long‐lasting numbness. Epinephrine‐containing articaine delivers a longer, more effective anaesthesia and is preferable for caries treatments and longer invasive treatments of the soft tissue.     

Failure of inferior alveolar nerve block in endodontics

Potočnik I, Bajrović F. Failure of inferior alveolar nerve block in endodontics. Endod Dent Traumatol 1999; 15: 247–251. © Munksgaard, 1999.
Abstract — Analgesia is essential for successful completion of modern dental procedures. Standard inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) is the primary method used to achieve mandibular analgesia. Difficulty experienced in obtaining satisfactory analgesia after IANB, especially of an acutely inflamed mandibular molar, remains a common clinical problem. Even when a proper technique is employed, clinical studies show that IANB fails in approximately 30% to 45% of cases. The reasons for failure are not fully understood. Anatomical considerations and abnormal physiological responses in the presence of inflammation as explanations for IANB failure are discussed in this paper.     

The significance of needle bevel orientation in achieving a successful inferior alveolar nerve block

BACKGROUND: The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, single-blinded, crossover study comparing the degree of pulpal anesthesia achieved with the use of a conventional inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block administered with the needle bevel oriented away from the mandibular ramus or toward the mandibular ramus. METHODS: Fifty-one blinded subjects randomly received an IAN block injection administered with a 27-gauge needle; the needle bevel was oriented away from the mandibular ramus or oriented toward the mandibular ramus at appointments spaced at least one week apart, in a crossover design. The authors used a pulp tester to test molars, premolars and central and lateral incisors for anesthesia in four-minute cycles for 60 minutes. They considered anesthesia to be successful when two consecutive 80 readings (the maximum output on the pulp tester) were obtained within 15 minutes, and the 80 reading was sustained continuously for 60 minutes. RESULTS: When the needle bevel was oriented away from the mandibular ramus, successful pulpal anesthesia from the central incisor to the second molar was achieved in 24 to 90 percent of patients. When the needle bevel was oriented toward the mandibular ramus, successful pulpal anesthesia was achieved in 14 to 92 percent of patients. The results showed no significant difference between the two needle bevel orientations. CONCLUSION: The authors concluded that using a 27-gauge needle with the bevel oriented away from the mandibular ramus was similar to using the same needle with the bevel oriented toward the mandibular ramus to administer successful IAN blocks in adults. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: For IAN blocks administered with a 27-gauge needle, positioning the needle bevel away or toward the mandibular ramus does not affect anesthetic success.     

必兰浸润麻醉与利多卡因阻滞麻醉在下颌阻生齿微创拔牙术中的临床对照研究

目的 比较必兰浸润麻醉与利多卡因阻滞麻醉法在下颌第三磨牙阻生齿微创拔牙术中的疗效.方法 选择双侧阻生齿拔除患者104名,在同一患者双侧下颌分别行必兰浸润麻醉或2%利多卡因阻滞麻醉,并行高速涡轮机微创拔牙,比较2组的麻醉显效率、麻醉显效时间、术中疼痛程度和术前后收缩压差及无痛持续时间,按配对样本t检验法行统计分析.结果 ...     

Anaesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine compared with 2% mepivacaine: a randomized,double-blind,crossover clinical trial

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of 4% articaine (Ar4) compared to 2% mepivacaine (Me2), both in combination with 1:100,000 epinephrine, in a unique soft tissue model. This was a randomized, double-blind, crossover clinical trial. The anaesthetic was applied to the lower lip using a computerized local delivery system. The following were evaluated: blood flow, thermal sensation, pressure and proprioception, extent of anaesthesia, gradual elimination, and the final duration of the effect of the anaesthesia. Seventy-two volunteers completed all parts of the study. Significant differences, which indicated better effectiveness of Me2 compared to Ar4, were observed in the following tests: reduction in blood flow (larger in the Me2 group); anaesthetized area at 30 min (larger in the Me2 group); pressure tests; temperature tests after 20 min; fine and discriminatory proprioception tests after 20 min. The volunteers’ perception of anaesthesia at 30, 40, 50, and 60 min was superior for Me2 at all recorded time points. The duration of anaesthesia was also superior for Me2. The overall performance of Me2 was superior to Ar4, implying that Me2 provides a more effective anaesthesia in terms of depth, extent, and duration.     

Facial and glossal distribution of anaesthesia after inferior alveolar nerve block

The aim of this study was to subjectively determine the distribution of anaesthesia by mapping areas of sensory loss following inferior alveolar nerve block. Fifty healthy dental students were the subjects of this study (men 32, women 18). They were asked to draw the anaesthetized area on a diagram of the face and tongue 20 min after inferior alveolar nerve block. They evaluated the degree of anaesthesia by touching their faces and moving their tongues. All of the 50 subjects reported anaesthesia in the facial area. Of these, 21 (42%) reported the cutaneous distribution of anaesthesia on mental nerve territory only. Seventeen subjects (34%) reported anaesthesia on mental and buccal nerve territory. Nine subjects (18%) reported anaesthesia on mental, buccal, and auriculotemporal nerve territory. Two subjects (4%) reported anaesthesia on mental and auriculotemporal nerve territory and one subject (2%) on mental, buccal and infra-orbital nerve territory. Forty-seven of the 50 subjects (94%) reported anaesthesia of the tongue with the various degree of anaesthesia according to the area. Of these, 17 subjects (34%) reported strong anaesthesia on the anterior area and weak anaesthesia on the middle part of the tongue. Nineteen subjects (38%) reported strong anaesthesia of the lateral area and weak anaesthesia on the medial area, and 11 subjects (22%) reported anaesthesia on only the lateral side of the tongue. Three subjects (6%) reported no anaesthesia of the tongue. The distribution of anaesthesia of the facial and glossal regions determined subjectively after inferior alveolar nerve block, varies significantly between individuals.     

A prospective, randomized single-blind study of the anesthetic efficacy of frequency-dependent conduction blockade of the inferior alveolar nerve

Introduction

The purpose of this prospective, randomized single-blind study was to evaluate the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with frequency-dependent conduction blockade of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN).

Methods

Eighty adult volunteers randomly received two IAN blocks: an IAN block followed by continuous electrical stimulation for 3 minutes of the first molar or lateral incisor for six cycles over a time period of 64 minutes; an IAN block followed by mock electrical stimulation using the same cycles. The IAN blocks were administered at two separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart in a crossover design. An electric pulp tester was used to test for anesthesia of the first molar and lateral incisor. Anesthesia was considered successful when two consecutive 80 readings were obtained within 15 minutes, and the 80 reading was recorded through the 60th minute.

Results

The anesthetic success rate for the stimulated IAN block was 35% and 48% for the lateral incisor and first molar, respectively. For the mock stimulated IAN, success was 18% for the lateral incisor and 62% for the first molar. There was no significant difference between the two IAN block techniques.

Conclusions

We concluded that the stimulation of nerves in the presence of local anesthesia (frequency-dependent nerve block) did not statistically increase the success rate of pulpal anesthesia for an IAN block.