Anesthetic efficacy of a combination palatal and buccal infiltration of the maxillary first molar

Introduction

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blind crossover study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of a combination palatal and buccal infiltration of the maxillary first molar.

Materials and Methods

Using a crossover design, 40 subjects received two sets of maxillary first molar infiltrations at two separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. The anesthetic used in this study was 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. One set of infiltrations consisted of a buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL of anesthetic and a palatal infiltration of 0.5 mL of anesthetic. The other set consisted of a buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL of anesthetic and a mock palatal infiltration. The first molar was pulp tested in 4-minute cycles for a total of 60 minutes. Anesthetic success was defined as no subject response to two consecutive 80 readings with an electric pulp tester.

Results and Conclusions

The success rates were 88% for the buccal infiltration and 95% for the buccal plus palatal infiltration. The difference was not statistically significant. The buccal plus palatal infiltration significantly increased the incidence of pulpal anesthesia from 21 minutes through 57 minutes. Although there was an increased incidence of pulpal anesthesia with the combination buccal plus palatal infiltration, anesthesia was not provided for 60 minutes.     

Anesthetic Efficacy of Supplemental Buccal and Lingual Infiltrations of Articaine and Lidocaine after an Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Patients with Irreversible Pulpitis

IntroductionThe success rate of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) decreases in patients with irreversible pulpitis. It was hypothesized that supplemental infiltration of lidocaine and articaine may improve the success rates.MethodsEighty-four adult volunteers, actively experiencing pain, participated in this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. All patients received standard IANB of 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine. Twenty-four patients did not receive supplemental infiltrations (control). Thirty patients received supplemental buccal and lingual infiltrations of 2% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and 30 patients received buccal and lingual infiltrations of 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine at 2 minutes after the IANB. 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.ResultsStatistical analysis using nonparametric McNemer tests showed that supplemental buccal and lingual infiltration of 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine or 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine improved the success rate from 33% to 47% and 67%, respectively. Also the success rate with 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine was significantly more than 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine (p < 0.05).ConclusionsAlthough supplemental buccal and lingual infiltrations of 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine increased the success rate of the inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with irreversible pulpitis, none of the techniques provided acceptable success rates.     

A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of bupivacaine and lidocaine for maxillary infiltrations

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in maxillary lateral incisors and first molars. Sixty-five subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, two infiltrations at two separate appointments, in a crossover design. The injections consisted of maxillary lateral incisor and first molar infiltrations of 1.8 mL 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 1.8 mL 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. In maxillary lateral incisors, bupivacaine exhibited a significantly lower anesthetic success rate (obtaining two consecutive 80 readings with the pulp tester within 10 minutes) of 78% when compared with a 97% success rate with lidocaine. In maxillary first molars, bupivacaine's onset of pulpal anesthesia (7.7 minutes) was significantly slower than lidocaine (4.3 minutes). Bupivacaine had a lower success rate than lidocaine (64% versus 82%) but there was no significant difference between the two solutions. Neither solution provided pulpal anesthesia for 1 hour.     

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.     

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.     

A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of articaine and lidocaine for maxillary infiltrations

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind crossover study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in maxillary lateral incisors and first molars. Eighty subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, maxillary lateral incisor and first molar infiltrations of one cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine at two separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. In maxillary lateral incisors, articaine exhibited a significantly higher anesthetic success rate of 88% when compared with a 62% success rate with lidocaine. In maxillary first molars, articaine had a similar success rate to lidocaine (78% vs 73%), and there was no significant difference between the two solutions. In conclusion, a maxillary infiltration of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine statistically improved anesthetic success when compared with 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in the lateral incisor but not in the first molar.     

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.     

Comparative Evaluation of the Efficacy of 2% Lidocaine Containing 1:200,000 Epinephrine with and without Hyaluronidase (75 IU) in Patients with Irreversible Pulpitis

Introductions

The purpose of this study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of lidocaine containing epinephrine compared with lidocaine containing epinephrine plus hyaluronidase (75 IU) when performing an inferior alveolar nerve block.

Methods

Patients complaining of pain in the mandibular posterior teeth were selected. Based on their chief complaint, proper clinical and radiographic examinations were performed. Among them, 40 subjects diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis were selected. The inferior alveolar nerve block was induced using 3 mL 2% lidocaine with epinephrine. Hyaluronidase (75 IU) or a placebo was injected 30 minutes after the beginning of pulpal anesthesia (randomized and double-blind trial). The duration of the effect in the pulpal and gingival tissues was evaluated by the response to painful electrical stimuli applied to the adjacent premolar and by mechanical stimuli (pinprick) to the buccal gingiva, respectively.

Results

In both pulpal and gingival tissues, the duration of the anesthetic effects with hyaluronidase was longer than with placebo.

Conclusions

Hyaluronidase increased the duration of the effects of lidocaine in inferior alveolar nerve blocks.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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

Introduction

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

Anesthetic Efficacy of Gow-Gates Nerve Block,Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block,and Their Combination in Mandibular Molars with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: A Prospective,Randomized Clinical Trial

Introduction

The purpose of this prospective, randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of the Gow-Gates nerve block (GGNB), the inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB), and their combination for mandibular molars in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

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。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Anesthetic efficacy of lidocaine/meperidine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients with irreversible pulpitis

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blind study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of lidocaine with epinephrine to lidocaine plus meperidine with epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IAN) in patients with mandibular posterior teeth experiencing irreversible pulpitis. Forty-eight emergency patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis of a mandibular posterior tooth randomly received, in a single-blind manner, 36 mg of lidocaine with 18 mug epinephrine or 36 mg of lidocaine with 18 mug of epinephrine plus 36 mg meperidine with 18 mug epinephrine, using a conventional inferior alveolar nerve block. Endodontic access was begun 15 minutes after solution deposition, and all patients were required to have profound lip numbness. Success was defined as no or mild pain (visual analog scale recordings) upon endodontic access or initial instrumentation. The success rate for the inferior alveolar nerve block using the lidocaine solution was 26%, and for the lidocaine/meperidine solution, the success rate was 12%. There was no significant difference (p = 0.28) between the two solutions. In conclusion, for mandibular posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis, the addition of 36 mg of meperidine to a lidocaine solution administered in a conventional IAN block did not improve the success rate over a standard lidocaine solution.     

The anesthetic efficacy of articaine in buccal infiltration of mandibular posterior teeth

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. METHODS: Each of 60 blinded adult subjects randomly received two buccal infiltrations at the first molar site: one cartridge of 4 percent articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine at one appointment and one cartridge of 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine at another appointment. The injections were administered during two separate appointments spaced at least one week apart. The authors used an electric pulp tester to assess the first and second molars and the first and second premolars for pulpal anesthesia in three-minute cycles for 60 minutes. They considered anesthesia to be successful when they obtained two consecutive pulp test readings of 80 (meaning the subject evidenced no response at the maximum output on the pulp tester). RESULTS: With the lidocaine formulation, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 45 to 67 percent. With the articaine formulation, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 75 to 92 percent. There was a significant difference (P < .05) in anesthetic success between the lidocaine and articaine formulations for each of the four teeth. Pulpal anesthesia declined slowly over 60 minutes with both formulations. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: For a mandibular buccal infiltration of the first molar, 4 percent articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine will result in a higher success rate than will 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, but the duration of pulpal anesthesia will decline over 60 minutes with either formulation.     

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.