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 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.     

碧兰麻局部浸润麻醉拔除后牙的麻醉效果观察

目的 观察碧兰麻局部粘膜下浸润麻醉拔除后牙的麻醉效果。方法 对102例患者106颗需拔除的后牙行碧兰麻局部浸润麻醉，观察麻醉效果。结果 碧兰麻局部浸润对上磨牙、下双尖牙有效率为100．0％，下磨牙有效率为85．7％。结论 碧兰麻的局部粘膜下浸润麻醉在上磨牙和下双尖牙的拔除术中，可以取代利多卡因的传导阻滞麻醉，而对下磨牙的麻醉效果较差。     

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 4 % Articaine During Extraction of the Mandibular Posterior Teeth by Using Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block and Buccal Infiltration Techniques

Introduction

The study was designed to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 4 % articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (A100) in infiltration and inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) anesthetic techniques for the pain control during extraction of the mandibular posterior teeth.

Methods

This prospective randomized single-blind clinical trial included 100 patients needing extraction of at least two mandibular molars. Patients received either infiltration in the buccal vestibule opposite to the first molar supplemented with lingual infiltration or standard IANB with A100. For assessment of depth of anesthesia obtained by the two anaethetic techniques, presence or absence of pain during the extraction were rated using the visual analog scale.

Results

Fifty patients received infiltration anesthesia and fifty patients were anesthetized by IANB. The success rate of pain-free extraction after buccal infiltration was 94 %, whereas by using IANB with the same anesthetic it was 92 %. No statistical differences were detected in the success rates between the two anesthetic techniques (P = 0.15).

Conclusions

Buccal Infiltration can be considered a good option during extraction of the mandibular molar and premolar teeth of course, with supplemental lingual anesthesia.

     

Anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental intraosseous injection of 3% mepivacaine in irreversible pulpitis

Objective. To determine the efficacy of a supplemental intraosseous injection of 3% mepivacaine in mandibular posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis. Intraosseous injection pain, subjective heart rate increase, and pain ratings during endodontic treatment were also assessed.Study Design. Forty-eight patients with irreversible pulpitis received conventional inferior alveolar nerve blocks. Electric pulp testing was used to determine pulpal anesthesia. Patients who were positive to the pulp testing, or negative to pulp testing but felt pain during endodontic treatment, received an intraosseous injection of 1.8 ml of 3% mepivacaine. A second intraosseous injection of 3% mepivacaine (1.8 ml) was given if the first injection was unsuccessful.Results. Seventy-five percent of patients required an initial intraosseous injection because of failure to gain pulpal anesthesia. The inferior alveolar block was 25% successful; the first intraosseous injection increased success to 80%. A second intraosseous injection further increased success to 98%. These differences were significant (p < 0.05). Eight percent () of the initial intraosseous injections resulted in solution being expressed into the oral cavity; these were considered technique failures.Conclusions. For mandibular posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis, a supplemental intraosseous injection of 3% mepivacaine increased anesthetic success. A second intraosseous injection, when necessary, further improved success.     

急性牙髓炎应用无痛局麻仪进行牙周膜麻醉的临床评价

目的：病例应用无痛局麻注射仪对神经阻滞麻醉失败病例进行牙周膜注射的疼痛程度及注射效果进行评价。方法：本组90例,采用无痛局麻注射仪进行牙周膜麻醉,与传统的手推式加压牙周膜麻醉对比。结果：应用无痛局麻注射仪进行牙周膜麻醉时,注射时疼痛程度明显小于手推式加压麻醉法。牙髓治疗时的麻醉效果两者无明显差别。但前者的成功率高于后者。阿替卡因注射时镇痛效果明显优于利多卡因,并且麻醉效果更好。     

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.     

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Lidocaine in Permanent Maxillary Teeth Removal Performed with Single Buccal Infiltration Versus Routine Buccal and Palatal Injection

Purpose

For many dental patients, palatal injection proves to be a very traumatic experience. Diverse methods have been suggested to reduce the discomfort of palatal injection. Nevertheless, the reliability of these methods is not obviously evident and they are not found to be universally effective. The desirable method to evade pain during palatal injection is just not to have one. Hence, the present study aims at investigating if lidocaine hydrochloride could provide palatal anesthesia in maxilla when only a buccal infiltration anesthesia is done for teeth extraction.

Patients and Methods

One hundred and fifty patients requiring extraction of maxillary teeth were included in the study. Patients were randomly allotted to two groups, study and control. Patients in study group received a single buccal infiltration of 1.5 mL of lidocaine with epinephrine for extraction of maxillary teeth. Patients in control group received 1.5 mL of buccal and 0.3 mL of palatal infiltration of lidocaine with epinephrine for the extraction. After achieving adequate palatal anesthesia the tooth was extracted with consistent technique. Pain level experienced by the patients during injection procedure and during tooth extraction was rated in an 11-point pain rating scale. Time taken to achieve palatal anesthesia following a single buccal infiltration of anesthetic solution was evaluated by regular pin-prick evaluation of palatal tissues.

Results

The overall success rate of palatal anesthesia achieved with a single buccal infiltration is 81.3 %. The success rate reduced as we proceed from anterior to posterior maxilla. Time taken to achieve successful palatal anesthesia by single buccal infiltration is 7–9 min.

Conclusion

The extraction of permanent maxillary anterior teeth and premolars is possible by depositing local anesthesia to the buccal vestibule of the tooth without palatal supplementation. However, the extraction of permanent maxillary posterior teeth with similar technique would result in fewer success rates suggesting its avoidance.     

碧兰麻对牙髓麻醉效果的临床验证

目的 验证碧兰麻对牙髓麻醉的效果及安全性。方法 对３１例患者的３３颗患牙进行局部粘膜下浸润麻醉电测牙髓活力反应及治疗中检测牙髓麻醉效果,观察副作用。结果 上颌牙齿及下颌前牙牙髓麻醉完全及良好率为１００％;下颌后牙牙髓麻醉完全及良好率为３５．７％;对血压、心率无影响;未发生副作用。结论 碧兰麻是一种安全、有效的口腔科专用的局部麻醉剂,它可替代传统的传导麻醉。     

Comparative study of local anesthetic efficacy of 5% tramadol versus 2 %Lignocaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline for extraction of fully erupted maxillary 3rd molars using infiltration anesthesia

IntroductionThe majority of dental procedures need local anesthesia for pain control, and lidocaine/ lignocaine is the most commonly used anesthetic agent in dentistry. Although effective and safest, the anesthetic agent still has some complications. To overcome these many alternatives have been used. Tramadol has been shown to have some local anesthetic (LA) effects when used for infiltration anesthesia in dentistry.MethodsIn the present study, the local anesthetic efficacy of tramadol was compared with 2% lignocaine containing 1: 100,000 adrenaline for the extraction of maxillary fully erupted 3rd molar teeth. The parameters recorded included the onset of action, duration of action, intraoperative pain, post-operative analgesic effect, and incidence of an allergic reaction. A total of 200 patients were randomly divided into two groups. In group A -Each patient received 0.6 ml of 5% tramadol (Tramataj- 50 mg prepared by Taj pharma company) 0.4 ml buccally and 0.2 ml palatally for extraction of maxillary 3rd molar as local infiltration following strict aseptic precaution. In Group B- patients received 0.6 ml of 2% lignocaine containing 1: 100,000 adrenaline buccally and 0.2 ml palatally as infiltrations.ResultsIt was found that 5% tramadol has a local anesthetic efficacy similar to 2% lignocaine with adrenaline but was found to be a comparatively weaker agent.Conclusiontramadol is a valid alternative for performing extractions in normal patients or patients allergic to lidocaine.     

Comparative study of local anesthetic efficacy of 5% tramadol versus 2 %Lignocaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline for extraction of fully erupted maxillary 3rd molars using infiltration anesthesia

IntroductionThe majority of dental procedures need local anesthesia for pain control, and lidocaine/ lignocaine is the most commonly used anesthetic agent in dentistry. Although effective and safest, the anesthetic agent still has some complications. To overcome these many alternatives have been used. Tramadol has been shown to have some local anesthetic (LA) effects when used for infiltration anesthesia in dentistry.MethodsIn the present study, the local anesthetic efficacy of tramadol was compared with 2% lignocaine containing 1: 100,000 adrenaline for the extraction of maxillary fully erupted 3rd molar teeth. The parameters recorded included the onset of action, duration of action, intraoperative pain, post-operative analgesic effect, and incidence of an allergic reaction. A total of 200 patients were randomly divided into two groups. In group A -Each patient received 0.6 ml of 5% tramadol (Tramataj- 50 mg prepared by Taj pharma company) 0.4 ml buccally and 0.2 ml palatally for extraction of maxillary 3rd molar as local infiltration following strict aseptic precaution. In Group B- patients received 0.6 ml of 2% lignocaine containing 1: 100,000 adrenaline buccally and 0.2 ml palatally as infiltrations.ResultsIt was found that 5% tramadol has a local anesthetic efficacy similar to 2% lignocaine with adrenaline but was found to be a comparatively weaker agent.Conclusiontramadol is a valid alternative for performing extractions in normal patients or patients allergic to lidocaine.     

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.     

Intraosseous anesthesia: implications,instrumentation and techniques

BACKGROUND: The author reviews historical methods and the instruments used to bring about intraosseous anesthesia, or IOA; discusses the criteria for successful use of the intraosseous injection, or IOI, technique; and provides recommendations. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: Articles from before 1990 consisted of subjective reports of patient types and procedures performed using IOI as a primary technique. Studies published after 1990 yielded subjective findings on indications for expanded clinical use. The author discusses the expansion of the role of IOI relative to integrated local anesthetic delivery systems. RESULTS: The literature and studies verify the efficacy of IOI as a supplemental or primary technique. The author recommends anesthetics and infusion sites, and reports on the patients' perceptions of comfort. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: IOI can be used as a supplemental or primary technique to bring about local anesthesia in routine dental procedures. It can be used as a supplemental technique with mandibular nerve blocks to enhance deep pulpal anesthesia. It can be used as a primary technique so that patients do not experience numb lips or tongues postoperatively. Dentists can appreciate the immediate onset of anesthesia and reduced dosage levels of anesthetics associated with using IOI.     

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.     

A comparison of two intraosseous anesthetic techniques in mandibular posterior teeth

BACKGROUND: A number of studies have evaluated the Stabident (Fairfax Dental, Miami) intraosseous anesthesia technique. A second intraosseous technique--the X-tip system (X-tip Technologies, Lakewood, N.J.)--has been introduced, but no scientific studies have yet compared its effectiveness to that of the Stabident system. The authors undertook a study to compare the two systems' anesthetic outcomes in primary intraosseous injections in mandibular posterior teeth. METHODS: The authors, using a crossover design, randomly administered a primary Stabident intraosseous injection and a primary X-tip intraosseous injection, at two separate appointments, to 41 subjects. Subjects were asked if they perceived an increase in heart rate with the intraosseous injections. The research team blind-tested each subject's first molar, second molar and second premolar with a pulp tester at two-minute cycles for 60 minutes after the injection. Anesthesia was considered successful when two consecutive pulp tester readings of 80 were obtained. RESULTS: Anesthetic success rates for the Stabident technique and the X-tip technique, respectively, were 93 percent and 93 percent for the first molar; 95 percent and 95 percent for the second molar; and 81 percent and 83 percent for the second premolar, with no significant differences (P > .05) between the two techniques. For both intraosseous techniques, onset of pulpal anesthesia occurred within the first two minutes, but the duration of anesthesia declined steadily over the 60 minutes. Eighty-five percent of the subjects had a perceived increase in heart rate with the Stabident injection and 93 percent with the X-tip injection, with no significant differences (P > .05) between the techniques. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The two primary intraosseous injection techniques were similar regarding anesthetic success, onset, duration and perceived heart rate increases.     

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.     

颊侧浸润麻醉对上颌磨牙麻醉效果的临床观察

目的：比较颊侧浸润麻醉与传统阻滞麻醉对上颌磨牙牙髓的麻醉效果。方法：选择因上颌磨牙深龋或牙髓炎患者,患牙在局麻下行去龋或开髓、拔髓操作。麻药为含1：80000肾上腺素的2%利多卡因。患者随机分为A、B、C三组,每组各100例。A组采用颊侧黏膜下浸润麻醉,剂量1.8ml;B组采用与A组相同的黏膜下浸润麻醉,剂量0.9ml;C组采用传统阻滞麻醉,剂量1.8ml。以视觉模拟评分法（VAS）对注射和操作的疼痛程度进行评分,以Kruskal-Wallis方法检验各组间差异。结果：①Kruskal-Wallis检验显示注射疼痛,组间有统计学差异（p〈0.05）,而操作疼痛,组间无统计学差异（p〉0.05）;②Nemenyi法进一步比较各组间注射疼痛的差异,A组与B组无显著性差异（p〉0.05）,而A组与C组、B组和C组之间存在显著性差异（p〈0.05）。结论：对于上颌磨牙的麻醉,颊侧浸润麻醉（1.8ml或0.9ml）与传统的阻滞麻醉在操作疼痛评分中无显著性差异,但是注射疼痛显著低于阻滞麻醉。提示0.9ml含1：80000肾上腺素的2%利多卡因颊侧浸润麻醉即可获得较好的上颌磨牙牙髓麻醉效果。     

Effect of Preoperative Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone on the Efficacy of the Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: A Prospective,Randomized, Double-blind,Placebo-controlled Study

Introduction

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to determine the effect of the administration of the combination acetaminophen/hydrocodone on the anesthetic success of mandibular posterior teeth in patients experiencing symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

Methods

One hundred emergency patients in moderate to severe pain diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis of a mandibular posterior tooth randomly received, in a double-blind manner, identical capsules of either a combination dose of 1000 mg acetaminophen/10 mg hydrocodone or placebo 60 minutes before the administration of a conventional inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block. Endodontic access was begun 15 minutes after completion of the block, and all patients used for data analysis had profound lip numbness. Success was defined as no or mild pain (visual analog scale recordings) on pulpal access or instrumentation.

Results

The success rate for the IAN block was 32% for the combination dose of 1000 mg acetaminophen/10 hydrocodone and 28% for the placebo dose, with no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (P = .662).

Conclusions

A combination dose of 1000 mg acetaminophen/10 mg hydrocodone given 60 minutes before the administration of the IAN block did not result in a statistically significant increase in anesthetic success for mandibular posterior teeth in patients experiencing symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.