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.     

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.     

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 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.     

Articaine infiltration for anesthesia of mandibular first molars

A randomized, controlled trial of 31 healthy volunteers compared 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine buccal infiltration to buccal plus lingual infiltration of the same dose of drug in achieving pulpal anesthesia of mandibular first molar teeth. Data were compared with efficacy of an inferior alveolar nerve block using 2% lidocaine 1:80,000 epinephrine in a cohort of 27 of the volunteers. Anesthesia was determined using electronic pulp testing. Buccal and buccal plus lingual infiltrations of articaine with epinephrine did not differ in efficacy in obtaining pulpal anesthesia for mandibular permanent first molars (p = 0.17). Efficacy of 4% articaine with epinephrine infiltrations for first molar pulp anesthesia was similar to that of an IANB using lidocaine with epinephrine over a 30-minute study period (96 and 80 episodes of no response to maximal stimulation respectively, p = 0.097). Subjective tooth numbness was more common after IANB than buccal infiltration (p = 0.005). The discomfort of buccal infiltration with articaine was volume dependent (p = 0.017) and similar to that of an IANB.     

Efficacy of articaine and lidocaine in a primary intraligamentary injection administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of the intraligamentary injection of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, administered with computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system, in mandibular posterior teeth. STUDY DESIGN: Using a crossover design, intraligamentary injections of 1.4 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and of 1.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine were randomly administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system, in a double-blind manner on the mesial and distal aspects of a mandibular first molar, at 2 separate appointments to 51 subjects. A pulp tester was used to test for anesthesia, in 2-minute cycles for 60 minutes, of the mandibular first and second molars and second premolar. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings (highest output) were obtained within 20 minutes. RESULTS: Successful pulpal anesthesia was obtained 86% of the time for the first molar using the articaine solution and 74% of the time using the lidocaine solution. There were no significant differences (P > .05) between the articaine and lidocaine solutions. The mean onset times of pulpal anesthesia for the first molar were 1.3 minutes with articaine solution and 2.2 minutes with lidocaine solution. Duration of pulpal anesthesia for the first molar was 34 minutes for the articaine solution and 31 minutes for the lidocaine solution. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was similar to the efficacy of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for intraligamentary injections.     

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

A comparison of the local anesthetic efficacy of the extraoral versus the intraoral infraorbital nerve block

BackgroundThe efficacy of the extraoral infraorbital nerve block has not been studied sufficiently to ensure its appropriate clinical use. To compare the local anesthetic efficacy of the extraoral versus the intraoral infraorbital nerve block, the authors conducted a prospective, randomized crossover study.MethodsForty adult participants randomly received extraoral infraorbital nerve blocks of 1.8 milliliters of 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine at one appointment and intraoral infraorbital nerve blocks of 1.8 mL of 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine at another appointment in a crossover design. After administering the injections, the authors used an electric pulp tester to assess the maxillary central and lateral incisors, canine, premolars and first molar for pulpal anesthesia in four-minute cycles for 60 minutes. They considered anesthesia to be successful when the participant had no response to two consecutive 80 readings (the maximum output) with the electric pulp tester.ConclusionsThe authors found that the extraoral and intraoral infraorbital nerve blocks were ineffective in providing profound pulpal anesthesia of the maxillary central incisor (15 percent success rate) and lateral incisor (22 percent success rate). The pulpal anesthesia success rate was 92 percent for the canine for both types of nerve blocks, 80 to 90 percent for first and second premolars and 65 to 70 percent for the first molar, with no significant differences (P < .05) between the two nerve blocks. Pulpal anesthesia did not last for an hour in any of the teeth. Needle insertion pain and postoperative sequelae were more common after the extraoral infraorbital nerve block was administered.Clinical ImplicationsBoth nerve blocks would be ineffective in the central and lateral incisors. Both nerve blocks would be somewhat successful in the canine and premolars but not in the first molar.     

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.     

The significance of needle bevel orientation in achieving a successful inferior alveolar nerve block

BACKGROUND: The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, single-blinded, crossover study comparing the degree of pulpal anesthesia achieved with the use of a conventional inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block administered with the needle bevel oriented away from the mandibular ramus or toward the mandibular ramus. METHODS: Fifty-one blinded subjects randomly received an IAN block injection administered with a 27-gauge needle; the needle bevel was oriented away from the mandibular ramus or oriented toward the mandibular ramus at appointments spaced at least one week apart, in a crossover design. The authors used a pulp tester to test molars, premolars and central and lateral incisors for anesthesia in four-minute cycles for 60 minutes. They considered anesthesia to be successful when two consecutive 80 readings (the maximum output on the pulp tester) were obtained within 15 minutes, and the 80 reading was sustained continuously for 60 minutes. RESULTS: When the needle bevel was oriented away from the mandibular ramus, successful pulpal anesthesia from the central incisor to the second molar was achieved in 24 to 90 percent of patients. When the needle bevel was oriented toward the mandibular ramus, successful pulpal anesthesia was achieved in 14 to 92 percent of patients. The results showed no significant difference between the two needle bevel orientations. CONCLUSION: The authors concluded that using a 27-gauge needle with the bevel oriented away from the mandibular ramus was similar to using the same needle with the bevel oriented toward the mandibular ramus to administer successful IAN blocks in adults. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: For IAN blocks administered with a 27-gauge needle, positioning the needle bevel away or toward the mandibular ramus does not affect anesthetic success.     

Articaine and lidocaine mandibular buccal infiltration anesthesia: a prospective randomized double-blind cross-over study

This randomized crossover double-blind trial compared the efficacy of buccal infiltration with 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine (both with 1:100,000 epinephrine) in securing mandibular first molar pulp anesthesia. Injections were given at least 1 week apart in 31 healthy adult volunteers. Electronic pulp testing was undertaken at baseline and at 2 minute intervals until 30 minutes postinjection. A successful outcome was recorded in the absence of pulp sensation on two consecutive maximal pulp tester stimulations (80 muA). 64.5% of articaine and 38.7% of lidocaine infiltrations were successful (p = 0.008). Articaine infiltration produced significantly more episodes of no response to maximum stimulation in first molars than lidocaine (236 and 129, respectively, p < 0.001). Mandibular buccal infiltration is more effective with 4% articaine with epinephrine compared to 2% lidocaine with epinephrine. Both injections were associated with mild discomfort.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Anesthetic efficacy of the mylohyoid nerve block and combination inferior alveolar nerve block/mylohyoid nerve block.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to measure the degree of anesthesia obtained with the mylohyoid nerve block and the combination mylohyoid nerve block/conventional inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block in mandibular teeth. STUDY DESIGN: With the use of a repeated-measures design, 30 subjects randomly received each of 3 combinations of injections at 3 separate appointments. The combinations were as follows: mylohyoid nerve block (1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine) + IAN block (3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine); mock mylohyoid nerve block + IAN block (3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine); mylohyoid nerve block (1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine) + mock IAN block. The mylohyoid injections were aided by the use of a peripheral nerve stimulator. Mandibular anterior and posterior teeth were blindly tested with a pulp tester at 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained. RESULTS: One hundred percent of the subjects had lip numbness with the mylohyoid nerve block + IAN block and mock mylohyoid nerve block + IAN block techniques. For these 2 techniques, anesthetic success rates were higher in posterior teeth (73% to 93%) than in anterior teeth (33% to 60%). There were no significant differences (P > .05) between the 2 techniques. The mylohyoid nerve block + mock IAN block technique resulted in a very low success rate (0% to 17%) and was significantly different (P < .05) from the mylohyoid nerve block + IAN block technique. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the mylohyoid nerve block does not by itself predictably provide pulpal anesthesia in mandibular teeth and does not significantly enhance pulpal anesthesia when administered in combination with the IAN block.     

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.     

A Prospective,Randomized, Double-blind Comparison of the Anesthetic Efficacy of Two Percent Lidocaine with 1:100,000 and 1:50,000 Epinephrine and Three Percent Mepivacaine in the Intraoral,Infraorbital Nerve Block

IntroductionThe purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 2% lidocaine with 1:50,000 epinephrine, and 3% mepivacaine in the intraoral, infraorbital nerve block.MethodsForty subjects randomly received intraoral, infraorbital nerve blocks by using a cartridge of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 or 1:50,000 epinephrine and a cartridge of 3% mepivacaine at 3 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. The anteriors, premolars, and first molar were pulp tested in 4-minute cycles for a total of 60 minutes.Results and ConclusionsThe intraoral, infraorbital nerve block was ineffective in providing profound pulpal anesthesia of the maxillary central incisor, lateral incisor, and first molar. Successful pulpal anesthesia of the canine and first and second premolars ranged from 75%–92% by using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 and 1:50,000 epinephrine. However, pulpal anesthesia did not last for 60 minutes. The use of 3% mepivacaine provided a shorter duration of anesthesia than the lidocaine formulations with epinephrine in the canines and premolars.     

Onset and duration periods of articaine and lidocaine on maxillary infiltration.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the onset and duration of pulpal anesthesia by maxillary infiltration using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Twenty healthy patients randomly received 1.8 mL of one of the three local anesthetics during operative dentistry procedures of low complexity on three maxillary posterior teeth. Onset and duration were determined using an electric pulp tester. RESULTS: The mean values for pulpal onset were 2.8, 1.6, and 1.4 minutes and for pulpal duration were 39.2, 56.7, and 66.3 minutes, respectively, for 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Statistical analysis by the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test showed significant differences with better results (shorter onset and longer duration periods) for both articaine solutions compared with the lidocaine solution. Although 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine clinically presented the shortest onset and the longest duration periods, there was no statistically significant difference between the articaine solutions. CONCLUSION: Both articaine solutions produced shorter onset and longer duration of pulpal anesthesia by maxillary infiltration than the lidocaine solution did. Statistical analysis did not confirm better clinical results of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine than with 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine.     

Efficacy of Articaine versus Lidocaine in Supplemental Infiltration for Mandibular First versus Second Molars with Irreversible Pulpitis: A Prospective,Randomized, Double-blind Clinical Trial

Introduction

Profound pulpal anesthesia is difficult to achieve in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis (IP). However, there are no published randomized controlled clinical trials comparing the success of supplemental buccal infiltration (BI) in mandibular first versus second molars with IP. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the efficacy of 4% articaine with 2% lidocaine for supplemental BIs in mandibular first versus second molars with IP after a failed inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). This study's sample was combined with data from a previous trial.

Anesthetic 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).