Does the Combination of 3% Mepivacaine Plain Plus 2% Lidocaine with Epinephrine Improve Anesthesia and Reduce the Pain of Anesthetic Injection for the Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block? A Prospective,Randomized, Double-blind Study

Introduction

In theory, using 3% mepivacaine initially for an inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block would decrease the pain of injection, provide faster onset, and increase anesthetic success. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with a combination of 3% mepivacaine/2% lidocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) versus a combination of 2% lidocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine)/2% lidocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) in IAN blocks. Injection pain was also studied.

Methods

One hundred asymptomatic subjects were randomly given a combination of a 1-cartridge volume of 3% mepivacaine plus a 1-cartridge volume of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and a combination of a 1-cartridge volume of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine plus a 1-cartridge volume of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for the IAN block at 2 separate appointments. Subjects rated the pain of injection. The molars, premolars, and incisors were tested with an electric pulp tester in 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes. Anesthetic success was defined as the subject achieving 2 consecutive 80 readings within 15 minutes after completion of the IAN blocks and sustaining the 80 reading for 60 minutes.

Results

Success was not significantly different (P > .05) between the 2 combinations. No statistical differences in injection pain or onset times were found.

Conclusions

The combination of 3% mepivacaine plus 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was equivalent to the combination of 2 cartridges of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in terms of injection pain, onset time, and pulpal anesthetic success for the IAN block.     

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).

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.     

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.     

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.     

A Prospective,Randomized Single-blind Evaluation of Effect of Injection Speed on Anesthetic Efficacy of Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis

Introduction

Speed of injection may affect the solution spread in the pterygomandibular space. It was hypothesized that speed of injection will affect the anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

Methods

Fifty-nine adult volunteers who were actively experiencing pain participated in this prospective, randomized, single-blind study. The patients were divided into 2 groups on a random basis and received either slow or rapid IANB with 3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine. Endodontic access preparation was initiated after 15 minutes of the initial IANB. Pain during treatment was recorded by using the Heft-Parker visual analogue scale. The primary outcome measure, and the definition of success, was the ability to undertake pulp access and canal instrumentation with no or mild pain (Heft-Parker visual analog scale score < 55 mm). Secondary outcome measure was the solution deposition pain. Statistical analysis was performed by using Mann-Whitney U test and χ² test.

Results

Slow and rapid injections gave 43% and 51% success rates, respectively. The difference was statistically insignificant. Slow injections produced less solution deposition pain than rapid injections.

Conclusions

Rate of injection has no effect on anesthetic success of IANB, but slow injections were more comfortable than rapid injections.     

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.     

Effects of Epinephrine on Lidocaine Pharmacokinetics and Blood Volume in the Dental Pulp

Introduction

Epinephrine potentiates and prolongs the efficacy of local anesthetics by reducing blood flow. We investigated the effect of epinephrine on the pharmacokinetics of lidocaine and the pulpal blood volume after maxillary infiltration anesthesia in rats.

Methods

We measured the ¹⁴C-radioactivity and ¹⁴C-distribution in the maxilla and the dental pulp after the injection of 2% ¹⁴C-lidocaine with or without 10 μg/mL epinephrine (n = 7) into the palatine mucosa proximal to the first molar. The blood volume in the pulp was measured using ^99mTc-pertechnetate (n = 5).

Results

When lidocaine was injected together with epinephrine, the lidocaine became widely distributed throughout the maxilla and was observed mainly in the first molar pulp. The lidocaine amount in the dental pulp at 10–60 minutes was more than 2 times higher than that after the injection of lidocaine alone. The relative pulpal blood volume after 20 minutes decreased to 63.1% of the value after the injection of lidocaine alone.

Conclusions

We found that lidocaine had infiltrated into the molar pulp after infiltration anesthesia. Furthermore, our results suggested that epinephrine augmented the retention of lidocaine in the pulp.     

Anesthetic Efficacy of the Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Red-haired Women

Introduction

The exact reasons for failure of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block are not completely known, but red hair could play a role. The genetic basis for red hair involves specific mutations, red hair color (RHC) alleles, in the melanocortin-1 receptor (MC1R) gene. The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to investigate a possible link between certain variant alleles of the MC1R gene or its phenotypic expression of red hair and the anesthetic efficacy of the IAN block in women.

Materials

One-hundred twenty-four adult female subjects (62 red haired and 62 dark haired) participated in this study. Dental anxiety was determined in each subject using the Corah Dental Anxiety Questionnaire. The subjects were given 2 cartridges of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine via the IAN block. Pulpal anesthesia was measured in the posterior and anterior teeth in 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes using an electric pulp tester. The MC1R alleles were genotyped for each subject from cheek cells containing DNA collected using buccal swabs.

Results

Women with red hair and women with 2 RHC alleles reported significantly higher levels of dental anxiety compared with women with dark hair or women with 0 RHC alleles. No significant differences in anesthetic success were found between any of the groups for any of the teeth.

Conclusions

Red hair and the MC1R gene were significantly linked to higher levels of dental anxiety but were unrelated to success rates of the IAN block in women with healthy pulps.     

Successful pulpal anesthesia for symptomatic irreversible pulpitis

Background and Overview

Profound pulpal anesthesia after a successful inferior alveolar nerve block can be difficult to achieve when the clinical condition is a pulpal diagnosis of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. The authors reviewed the literature as it relates to the anesthesia necessary for endodontic therapy of patients with painful, vital, mandibular teeth diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

Anesthetic Efficacy of Supine and Upright Positions for the Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block: A Prospective,Randomized Study

Introduction

It has been recommended to place patients in an upright position after administration of an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB), theoretically allowing the anesthetic to diffuse in an inferior direction and resulting in better pulpal anesthesia. The purpose of this study was to compare an upright versus a supine position on the success of pulpal anesthesia when an IANB was administered in asymptomatic teeth.

A comparison of articaine and lidocaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve blocks. Using a crossover design, inferior alveolar nerve blocks were randomly administered, in a double-blind manner, using 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, at two separate appointments, to 57 subjects. A pulp tester was used to test for anesthesia, in 4-min cycles for 60 min, of the molars, premolars, central, and lateral incisors. Anesthesia was considered successful when two consecutive 80 readings were obtained within 15 min and the 80 reading was continuously sustained for 60 min. Using the articaine solution, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 4 to 54% from the central incisor to the second molar. Using the lidocaine solution, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 2 to 48%. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the articaine and lidocaine solutions. We concluded that 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was similar to 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve blocks.     

Anesthetic efficacy of different volumes of lidocaine with epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks

Volumes of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine were compared in inferior alveolar nerve blocks. The first molars, first premolars, and lateral incisors of 462 subjects were pulp tested for 55-60 minutes following administration of inferior alveolar nerve blocks. Results showed no significant difference between the two volumes of anesthetic in achieving successful pulpal anesthesia.     

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.

     

Efficacy of Articaine Versus Lidocaine Administered as Supplementary Intraligamentary Injection after a Failed Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block: A Randomized Double-blind Study

Introduction

The present study comparatively evaluated the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine given as supplemental intraligamentary injections after a failed inferior alveolar nerve block.

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.     

Efficacy of 4 % Articaine and 2 % Lidocaine: A clinical study

Objectives

This study was undertaken to compare the anesthetic properties of 4 % Articaine hydrochloride and 2 % Lidocaine both with 1:100,000 epinephrine for mandibular inferior alveolar nerve anesthesia.

Materials and Methods

Thirty healthy patients were included in this randomized double-blind clinical cross over study. Each subject received each test solution at different times. Inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia was used for extraction of bilateral impacted mandibular third molar on different occassions. The time of onset of action, duration of anesthesia, efficacy of anesthesia, hemodynamic parameters and oxygen saturation were monitored during the procedure. A visual analog scale was used to assess pain during surgery, and thus subjectively evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of the two solutions.

Results

No statistically significant differences were seen in the onset and duration of anesthesia between the Articaine and Lidocaine solutions.

Conclusions

4 % Articaine offers better clinical performance than 2 % Lidocaine, particularly in terms of latency and duration of the anesthetic effect. However, no statistically significant differences in anesthetic efficacy were recorded between the two solutions.     

A double-blind comparison of 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 0.5% levobupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine for the inferior alveolar nerve block

This double-blind cross-over study compared the anesthetic success and onset and duration of lip and pulpal anesthesia of 0.5% bupivacaine and levobupivacaine solutions, both with 1:200,000 epinephrine, when administered for inferior alveolar nerve anesthesia. Thirty healthy volunteers were randomly anesthetized using one of the solutions. The inferior canine, second premolar, and molar were tested with electric stimulation. The pulpal anesthetic success rates for bupivacaine and levobupivacaine were 80% and 76.66%, respectively, for molars, 76.66% (both solutions) for premolars, and 70% (both solutions) for canines. At least 250 minutes of pulpal anesthesia was achieved. There were no significant differences between the solutions considering the measured parameters (P > .05). Because of the similar anesthetic behavior of the 2 solutions in this study and the low toxicity related in the literature for levobupivacaine, there is justification for replacing bupivacaine with levobupivacaine for inferior alveolar nerve local anesthesia.     

Utilizzo clinico odontoiatrico di un erogatore di anestetico locale a controllo computerizzato

Objectives

The aim of this paper is to ascertain and underline the advantages of using a computer-controlled anesthetic injection system.

Materials and methods

The use of STA Single Tooth Anesthesia System is reported in details. And again, a clinical case is presented where local anesthetic technique on dental entities (46 and 47) was performed by means of STA System.

Results and conclusions

The STA System technique anesthetizes a tooth using a painless intraligamentary injection without damaging the periodontal ligament, which highly reduces the need of executing the troncular anesthesia of the inferior alveolar nerve. By using this anesthesia technique a more accurate recording of the occlusal relationship as well as a more reliable evaluation of the patient's aesthetics during a conservative or prosthetic dental therapy are achieved.     

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.