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.     

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.     

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.     

Gow-Gates法下牙槽神经阻滞麻醉在下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术中的麻醉效果研究

目的 通过临床随机对照试验的方法评价Gow-Gates法下牙槽神经阻滞麻醉在下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术中的麻醉有效性和安全性。方法 使用左右半口设计,32例患者的左右下颌阻生第三磨牙分别随机采用Gow-Gates法和传统注射法进行下牙槽神经阻滞麻醉,并拔除下颌阻生第三磨牙,记录麻醉效果及不良事件。结果 所有患者均完成研究。Gow-Gates法的麻醉成功率为96.9%,传统注射法的麻醉成功率为90.6%,二者的麻醉成功率无统计学差异（P=0.317）。在麻醉程度上,Gow-Gates法麻醉程度为A和B级的比率为96.9%,明显好于传统注射法的78.1%（P=0.034）。Gow-Gates法的回抽出血率明显低于传统注射法（P=0.025）,2种注射方法均未出现血肿。结论 Gow-Gates法下牙槽神经阻滞麻醉在下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术中的麻醉效果好且较为安全,可以作为传统注射法的有效补充。     

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block and intraligamentary anesthesia in the extraction of primary mandibular molars: A randomized controlled clinical trial

ObjectiveThe study aims to compare the effectiveness and quality of intraligamentary anesthesia (ILA) and inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for primary mandibular molar extraction.MethodsThis prospective, randomized clinical study included patients aged 5 to 13 years scheduled for primary mandibular molar extraction. A total of 208 participants were randomly allocated into two groups (n = 104 each group), IANB and ILA, who were administered 2% lignocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000. Patients rated their pain during injection and extraction (VAS pain score). Frankl’s behavior rating score, quality of anesthesia as perceived by clinician, and duration of procedure were recorded. Demographic and other variables were analysed using Pearson x² test, Pearson correlation coefficient, Fisher exact test, or an analysis of variance, as appropriate.ResultsIn patients who received IANB, the clinician reported a slightly better quality of anesthesia (p = 0.19) than those who received ILA (VAS score 1.3 ± 0.7 Vs 1.6 ± 0.4). Mean (±SD) score for pain during extraction were found be 1.7 (±0.6) for the IANB group and 1.8 (±0.5) for the ILA group. The clinician observed 46.2% of patients in the IANB group and 39.4% of patients in the ILA group had no discomfort during extraction. Frankl’s behavior score was negatively correlated with the quality of anesthesia and the time taken to complete the extraction (p = 0.017 and p = 0.053, respectively).ConclusionThe efficacy of conventional ILA was similar to IANB, and thus ILA might be a good alternative to the IANB while extracting primary mandibular molars.     

Perineural infiltration of the inferior alveolar nerve in mandibular ameloblastomas

Our aim was to evaluate the histological association of mandibular solid and multicystic ameloblastoma with the inferior alveolar nerve, both in situ and in segments of the nerve that had been removed separately, to assess the feasibility of preserving the nerve during resection of mandibular ameloblastomas. In this prospective histological examination of 13 resected hemimandibulectomy specimens, we studied the proximity of tumour cells to the inferior alveolar nerve. In group 1 (n = 8) this association was examined with the nerve still within the mandibular segment after resection, while in group 2 (n = 5) the nerve was removed from the resected tumour and examined separately. Perineural and intraneural involvement of the ameloblastoma with the nerve was confirmed in 5 cases in group 1 and 2 cases in group 2. Tumour cells abutted the nerve directly in group 1. In group 2 tumour was removed with, and found within, the nerve. On this evidence we cannot recommend preservation of the inferior alveolar nerve during operation for large, advanced, mandibular ameloblastomas.     

必兰浸润麻醉与利多卡因阻滞麻醉在下颌阻生齿微创拔牙术中的临床对照研究

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

Facial and glossal distribution of anaesthesia after inferior alveolar nerve block

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

A comparison of articaine 4% and lignocaine 2% in block and infiltration analgesia in children

Background: Articaine administered through buccal infiltration (BI) has been suggested as providing adequate posterior mandibular analgesia. This study compared the efficacy of articaine 4% with 1:100 000 adrenaline (test) and lignocaine 2% with 1:80 000 adrenaline (control), delivered either through an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) or BI for routine restorative procedures in mandibular posterior teeth among children. Methods: Children enrolled within the Western Australian School Dental Service and in need of restorative care on contralateral mandibular posterior teeth were eligible. Consenting children were randomly allocated to test and control techniques, and to type of local anaesthetic. Using the faces pain scale, pain reports from analgesia administration and from dental treatment were elicited. Analgesia success and pain reports were compared by anaesthetic technique and type. Results: Fifty‐seven children were recruited into the study; 29 allocated to IANB. Analgesia success for IANB 100%; BI 67%; p < 0.001. Analgesia success for BI with articaine 71%; lignocaine 64%, p > 0.05. Analgesia success was associated with fewer reports of painful dental treatment, p = 0.005. Conclusions: There was higher success and less painful treatment with IANB. There was no statistically significant difference in local analgesia success between articaine and lignocaine when delivered via BI.     

下牙槽神经阻滞麻醉后失声1例

下牙槽神经阻滞麻醉是口腔科门诊常用的局部麻醉方式,但麻醉后出现失声国内外文献鲜有报道。本文报道1例下牙槽神经阻滞麻醉后失声的患者,并结合文献进行讨论。     

改良Gow-Gates下牙槽神经阻滞麻醉在下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术中的应用

目的:探讨一种微创高效的下牙槽神经阻滞麻醉方法。方法:将206例门诊拔除下颌阻生第三磨牙患者随机分为2组,实验组105例采用改良Gow-Gates法,对照组101例采用传统口内注射法（Halstead法）。记录麻醉成功率、麻醉效果和并发症,采用SPSS17.0软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果:改良Gow-Gates法麻醉成功率为97.15%,Halstead法为89.10%,2组间显著差异（P=0.038）。改良Gow-Gates法在麻醉效果A、B级比率为90.48%,Halstead法为87.13% ,2组间无显著性差异（P=0.446）。改良Gow-Gates法的并发症显著少于Halstead法（P=0.014）。结论:Gow-Gates下牙槽神经阻滞麻醉是一种微创高效的麻醉方法。     

Effect of intraosseous injection versus inferior alveolar nerve block as primary pulpal anaesthesia of mandibular posterior teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized clinical trial

Objective: This study sought to assess the success rate, effect on blood pressure, and pain of intraosseous injection (IO) and inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for pulpal anaesthesia of mandibular posterior teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis as the primary anaesthetic technique.

Materials and methods: This randomized clinical trial (IRCT2013022712634N1) was conducted on 60 patients between 18 and 65 years suffering from symptomatic irreversible pulpitis of a mandibular posterior tooth. Patients were randomly divided into two groups. Group one received IO while group two received IANB with 3% mepivacaine. After anaesthetic injection, success rate of pulpal anaesthesia was assessed by pulp testing in the two groups. Systolic and diastolic blood pressures of patients were compared before and after the anaesthetic injections. Level of pain during injection was scored using a visual analogue scale. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 20, t-test and chi square test at p?=?.05 level of significance.

Results: Success rate of IO (56.7%) was significantly higher than that of IANB (23.3%) (p?=?.008). There was no significant difference in pain during anaesthetic injection (p?=?.304) or change in systolic (p?=?.80) and diastolic (p?=?.28) blood pressures following injection between the two techniques.

Conclusions: IO had a higher success rate than IANB for pulpal anaesthesia of mandibular posterior teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Neither technique provided profound pulpal anaesthesia.