Efficacy and safety of intraseptal and periodontal ligament anesthesia achieved by computer-controlled articaine + epinephrine delivery: a dose-finding study

Objectives

The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the dose-dependent anesthetic efficacy of the intraseptal anesthesia (ISA) and periodontal ligament anesthesia (PLA) obtained with different volumes of 4 % articaine and 1:100,000 epinephrine (Ar + Ep) in human mandibular premolars, using a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system (CCLADS). The safety profile of Ar + Ep was also studied by investigating the stability of cardiovascular parameters.

Material and methods

One hundred and eighty randomly selected healthy volunteers (ASA I) entered the single-blinded study to receive 16 mg?+?4 μg, 24 mg?+?6 μg, and 32 mg?+?8 μg of Ar + Ep, obtained with different volumes (0.4, 0.6, and 0.8 ml, respectively), for the ISA and PLA. Success rate, onset, and duration of profound pulpal anesthesia were evaluated by the electrical pulp tester, while the width of the anesthetic field and duration of soft tissue anesthesia were recorded using the pinprick testing. A monitor was used for the measurement of cardiovascular parameters.

Results

A dose-dependent duration of pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia was obtained only by the ISA. Success rate, duration of both pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia, and its width were significantly better in the ISA compared with the PLA. No significant cardiovascular changes were seen in both groups.

Conclusions

It can be suggested that 0.6 and 0.8 ml of 4 % Ar + 1:100,000 Ep, delivered by CCLADS, offer high success rate and effective clinical parameters of ISA as a primary anesthesia.

Clinical relevance

It seems that dental procedures requiring profound pulpal, bone, and soft tissue anesthesia could be effectively and safely obtained by mentioned anesthetic protocol.     

Comparative clinical evaluation of different epinephrine concentrations in 4 % articaine for dental local infiltration anesthesia

Objectives

The aims of this study were to compare and evaluate the clinical anesthetic efficacy of five 4 % articaine solutions with and without epinephrine in pulpal anesthesia after infiltration.

Materials and methods

In a randomized, double-blinded, crossover study, ten volunteers received local anesthesia infiltration in the maxillary right central incisor with five different solutions (4 % articaine?+?epinephrine 1:100,000, + epinephrine 1:200,000, + epinephrine 1:300,000, + epinephrine 1:400,000, without epinephrine). Electronic pulp tester was used to calculate the onset, utilization time, time to recede, and the surface integral under the time–effect curve. Additionally, cardiovascular parameters and post-experimental soft tissue anesthesia were examined.

Results

Onset as well as time to recede was not influenced by the epinephrine concentration. When using the epinephrine-free agent, time to recede was significantly shorter. Upon decreasing epinephrine concentration, duration of pulpal anesthesia and total anesthetic efficacy declined. The shortest time of anesthesia and lowest anesthetic efficacy were seen for the solution without epinephrine. No association was found between the local anesthetic drug and cardiovascular parameters. Soft tissue anesthesia was significantly shorter without epinephrine.

Conclusions

This study shows the substantial benefits of vasoconstrictors in dental infiltration anesthesia. These findings were reflected by means of prolonged and deeper therapeutic effect in a dose-dependent manner.

Clinical relevance

Even when utilizing agents with reduced amount of epinephrine, a safe anesthesia is possible. The epinephrine-free solutions resulted in a distinct limitation of utilization time and efficacy.     

Anesthetic efficacy of 4% Articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine versus 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine as a primary buccal infiltration in the mandibular first molar

Introduction

No study has compared 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine with 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine in a mandibular buccal infiltration of the first molar. The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover study comparing the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine as a primary infiltration in the mandibular first molar.

Methods

Eighty-six asymptomatic adult subjects randomly received a primary mandibular buccal first molar infiltration of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine in 2 separate appointments. The authors used an electric pulp tester to test the first molar for anesthesia in 3-minute cycles for 60 minutes after the injections.

Results

The two 4% articaine formulations showed no statistically significant difference when comparing anesthetic success, onset of anesthesia, or incidence of pulpal anesthesia.

Conclusions

The anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine is comparable to 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in a primary mandibular buccal infiltration of the first molar.     

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.     

Anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL versus 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a primary buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar

Introduction

No study has compared 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in a mandibular buccal infiltration of the first molar. The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, single-blind, crossover study comparing the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a primary infiltration in the mandibular first molar.

Methods

Eighty-six asymptomatic adult subjects randomly received a primary mandibular buccal first molar infiltration of 1.8 mL or 3.6 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in two separate appointments. The authors used an electric pulp tester to test the first molar for anesthesia in 3-minute cycles for 90 minutes after the injections.

Results

Compared with the 1.8-mL volume of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, the 3.6-mL volume showed a statistically higher success rate (70% vs 50%).

Conclusions

The anesthetic efficacy of 3.6 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine is better than 1.8 mL of the same anesthetic solution in a primary mandibular buccal infiltration of the first molar. However, the success rate of 70% is not high enough to support its use as a primary injection technique in the mandibular first molar.     

Ropivacaine for dental anesthesia: a dose-finding study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal concentration and volumes of ropivacaine for dental anesthesia as regards onset and duration of action. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty healthy individuals with a mean age of 32 years participated in the study on a voluntary basis. All subjects received a ropivacaine injection in 1 of 3 randomized concentrations (2.0, 5.0, or 7.5 mg/mL) for infiltration anesthesia and mandibular nerve block in a double-blind manner. The onset time and duration of anesthesia were assessed by electric pulp test, pinprick test of the gingiva, and presence of feeling of numbness of the lip. RESULTS: Regardless of dose, only 5 patients received pulpal anesthesia after infiltration, but all 3 concentrations anesthetized the gingiva and upper lip. The onset of pulpal anesthesia occurred less than 5 minutes after injection and lasted for 4 to 58 minutes. Pinprick anesthesia lasted for 8 to 48 minutes, and numbness of the upper lip lasted 1 to 4 hours. The effectiveness of the mandibular nerve block with regard to pulpal anesthesia was dose dependent. Only ropivacaine at 7.5 mg/mL produced sufficient anesthesia. The onset of pulpal anesthesia occurred less than 10 minutes after injection and lasted for 2 to 6 hours. Pinprick anesthesia lasted for 3 to 6 hours and numbness of the lower lip lasted for 5 to 9 hours. CONCLUSION: This study shows that ropivacaine could be useful as a local anesthetic for mandibular nerve block in dentistry and that the very long duration of both pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia may be favorable in reducing postoperative pain.     

Comparison of pulpal anesthesia and cardiovascular parameters with lidocaine with epinephrine and lidocaine with clonidine after maxillary infiltration in type 2 diabetic volunteers

Objectives

The pulpal anesthetic and cardiovascular parameters obtained by 2 % lidocaine with epinephrine (LE; 1:80,000) or clonidine (LC; 15 mcg/ml) were studied in diabetes mellitus (DM) type 2 and healthy volunteers (72), after maxillary infiltration anesthesia.

Materials and methods

Onset and duration of pulpal anesthesia were measured by electric pulp tester; vasoconstrictive effect of used local anesthetic mixtures by laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF) through pulpal blood flow (PBF); systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and heart rate (HR) were registered by electrocardiogram monitoring.

Results

Onset of pulpal anesthesia was shorter for LC than for LE in healthy, while it was not different in diabetic participants; duration of pulpal anesthesia was significantly longer in type 2 diabetic participants, regardless of used anesthetic mixture. Significant reduction of PBF with LE was observed during 45 min in healthy and 60 min in diabetic participants, while with LC such reduction was observed during 45 min in both groups. LE caused a significant increase of SBP in the 5th and 15th minutes in diabetic versus healthy participants, while LC decreased SBP from the 10th to 60th minutes in healthy versus diabetic participants.

Conclusions

DM type 2 influences duration of maxillary infiltration anesthesia obtained with LE and LC, and systolic blood pressure during LE anesthesia.

Clinical relevance

The obtained results provide elements for future protocols concerning intraoral local anesthesia in DM type 2 patients.

     

Comparison of the degree of pulpal anesthesia achieved with the intraosseous injection and infiltration injection using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine

This prospective, randomized study compared the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained from an intraosseous injection to an infiltration injection that used 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. The success rate for the intraosseous injection was 98%; for the infiltration injection, the success rate was 85%. There was no significant difference between the two techniques. The mean time for the onset of pulpal anesthesia was significantly faster with the intraosseous injection and the infiltration injection resulted in a significantly longer duration of pulpal anesthesia.     

Extraction of Permanent Maxillary Teeth by Only Buccal Infiltration of Articaine

Objective

The aim of this study is to demonstrate whether articaine hydrochloride administered alone as a single buccal infiltration in maxillary tooth removal, can provide favourable palatal anesthesia as compared to buccal and palatal injection of lidocaine.

Study Design

The study population consisted of 30 patients who were undergoing orthodontic treatment, and who required bilateral extraction of maxillary permanent premolars as per their orthodontic treatment plan. On the experimental side, 4 % articaine/HCl was injected into the buccal vestibule of the tooth to be extracted. On the control side, 2 % lignocaine HCl was injected both into the buccal and the palatal side of the tooth to be extracted. Following tooth extraction all patients completed a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and faces pain scale (FPS) to rate the pain on extraction.

Results

According to the VAS and FPS scores, the pain on extraction between buccal infiltration of articaine and the routine buccal and palatal infiltration of lignocaine was statistically insignificant.

Conclusions

The routine use of a palatal injection for the removal of permanent maxillary premolar teeth may not be required when articaine/HCl is used as the local anesthetic.     

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 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The effect of intraosseous local anesthesia of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine on pulpal blood flow and pulpal anesthesia of mandibular molars and canines

Objectives

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of intraosseous (IO) anesthesia with 4% articaine and 1:100,000 epinephrine on pulpal blood flow (PBF) and pulpal anesthesia of mandibular first molars and canines in human subjects.

Materials and methods

Ten healthy volunteers with intact mandibular first molar and canine were given an osteocentral technique of IO injection using the Quick Sleeper 5 system and 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine at distal site of mandibular first molar. The PBF was monitored by a laser Doppler flowmeter (LDF). Pulpal anesthesia was assessed with an electric pulp tester (EPT).

Results

IO injection caused a decrease in PBF in molars from 6.31 ± 3.85 perfusion units (P.U.) before injection to 2.51 ± 2.53 P.U. 1 min after injection (P < 0.001). The percentage reduction in PBF was 60% after 1 min and PBF returned back to the baseline after 45 min. No significant reduction in PBF was observed in the canines (P = 0.212). For pulpal anesthesia in the molars, the mean onset was 2.40 ± 0.84 min and the mean duration was 38 ± 16.19 min. In the canines, there was a decrease in the sensitivity to EPT but complete pulpal anesthesia was not achieved.

Conclusions

IO injection distal to mandibular first molar caused a decrease in PBF and successful pulpal anesthesia in first molar, but not in canine. Both PBF and EPT readings returned to normal, suggesting that pulpal ischemia may not occur.

Clinical relevance

IO anesthesia is safe to use as a primary technique in teeth with normal pulp.

     

An evaluation of buccal infiltrations and inferior alveolar nerve blocks in pulpal anesthesia for mandibular first molars

We compared the anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANBs) with that of buccal infiltrations (BIs) in mandibular first molars. Using a crossover design, all subjects received a standard IANB or a BI of 1.7 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline (Septanest; Septodont, Saint-Maru-des-Fosses, France) on two appointments separated by at least 1 week. Pulpal anesthesia was determined by using an electric pulp tester. Electric pulp testing was repeated at 5, 8, 11, 15, 20, 25, and 30 minutes after the injections. Anesthesia was considered successful if the subject did not respond to the maximum output of the pulp tester at two or more consecutive time points. Fifty-four percent of the BI and 43% of the IANB were successful; the difference was not significant (p = 0.34). The onset of pulpal anesthesia was significantly faster with BI (p = 0.03). In conclusion, BI with 4% articaine for mandibular first molars can be a useful alternative for clinicians because compared with IANB it has a faster onset and a similar success rate.     

Levobupivacaine vs. bupivacaine for third molar surgery: quality of anaesthesia,postoperative analgesia and local vascular effects

Objectives

The main purpose of this prospective, double-blind, randomized study was to evaluate anaesthetic parameters, postoperative analgesia and vasoactive properties of levobupivacaine and bupivacaine for lower third molar surgery.

Material and methods

Sixty patients (ASA I) were scheduled for lower third molar surgery under inferior alveolar nerve block, lingual nerve block and buccal nerve block (mandibular nerve blocks) obtained with 3 ml of 0.5 % levobupivacaine and 3 ml of 0.5 % bupivacaine. Success rate, onset and duration of three nerve bocks were evaluated by electrical pulp testing, pinprick testing and signs of soft tissue anaesthesia (patient-reported numbness). Intensity of intraoperative anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia were measured with visual analogue scale (VAS) and numeric rating scale (NRS). The time of first postoperative pain reported and analgesic consumption were also recorded. The laser Doppler flowmetry was used for the measurement of the first premolar pulpal blood flow.

Results

There were no differences between levobupivacaine and bupivacaine regarding the success rate, onset and duration of mandibular nerve blocks as well as intensity of postoperative analgesia and analgesic consumption. Intensity of intraoperative anaesthesia and duration of postoperative analgesia were significantly higher in the levobupivacaine than in the bupivacaine group. Both anaesthetics showed similar biphasic vasoactive effect.

Conclusions

Levobupivacaine 0.5 % achieved superiority over bupivacaine 0.5 % in the intensity of intraoperative anaesthesia and duration of postoperative analgesia for lower third molar surgery under the mandibular nerve blocks.

Clinical relevance

It seems that the plain levobupivacaine (0.5 %) could be an effective alternative to plain bupivacaine (0.5 %) in those dental procedures which require profound bone and soft tissue anaesthesia.