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.     

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.     

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.     

Comparing anesthetic efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine as a supplemental buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar after an inferior alveolar nerve block

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 after an inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block with the use of 4 percent articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. METHODS: Seventy-three blinded adult subjects randomly received buccal infiltrations at the first molar site with a cartridge of 4 percent articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine at one appointment and a cartridge of 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine at another appointment after receiving a standard IAN block with the use of 4 percent articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in a crossover design. After the injections, the authors used an electric pulp tester to test the first molar for anesthesia in three-minute cycles for 60 minutes. They considered anesthesia to be successful when two consecutive 80 readings were obtained within 10 minutes of the IAN block and infiltration injection, and the 80 reading was sustained continuously through the 60th minute. RESULTS: The authors found that with the use of the 4 percent articaine formulation, successful pulpal anesthesia occurred 88 percent of the time for the first molar. With the 2 percent lidocaine formulation, successful pulpal anesthesia occurred 71 percent of the time. The results show a significant difference (P < .05) between the articaine and lidocaine formulations. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: For a mandibular buccal infiltration of the first molar after a standard IAN block, 4 percent articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine resulted in a higher success rate (88 percent) than did 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (71 percent success rate).     

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.     

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 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.     

Comparison of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine when used as a supplemental anesthetic

A randomized, double-blind trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine when used as a supplemental anesthetic. Forty-eight patients with irreversible pulpitis requiring supplemental buccal infiltration for endodontic therapy were given either 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in a double-blind manner. A standard VAS pain scale was used to evaluate the patient's response to pain after a supplemental injection. The mean VAS score after supplemental anesthesia was 15.28 for 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 19.70 for 2% lidocaine with 1:00,000 epinephrine. The mean percentage change in VAS score was 70.5 and 62.2% for articaine and lidocaine, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the VAS pain score between 4% articaine with 1:00,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:00,000 epinephrine as a supplemental anesthetic.     

Comparison of the efficacy of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 and 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 buccal infiltration for single maxillary molar extraction: a double-blind,randomised, clinical trial

The present study was designed to compare the efficiency of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 and 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 in providing adequate anaesthesia for maxillary molar extraction with buccal infiltration only. In this randomised, double-blind clinical trial, 139 patients who needed maxillary molars extracting were enrolled. Individuals were randomly divided into two groups of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 treated by buccal infiltration without palatal injection and 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 treated with the same method. Then, teeth were extracted and the pain assessed. During the extraction of teeth, 90.63% of patients in the lidocaine-treated group and 36% of patients in the articaine-treated group experienced pain (p<0.0001). In other words, the rates of successful anaesthesia with lidocaine and articaine buccal infiltration were 9.38% and 64%, respectively. Despite the better performance of articaine, it seems that some factors such as bone thickness and anatomical variations among individuals, besides the condition of the tooth, affects articaine’s level of efficiency in each case.     

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.     

Comparison of onset and duration of action of soft tissue and pulpal anesthesia with three volumes of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in maxillary infiltration anesthesia

Purpose

This randomized double-blind investigation was conducted to compare the onset and duration of action of soft tissue and pulpal anesthesia with three volumes of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in maxillary infiltration anesthesia. The injection discomfort associated with three volumes of infiltration anesthesia was also assessed.

Materials and methods

A total of 10 subjects received 0.6?mL (group 1), 0.9?mL (group 2), and 1.2?mL (group 3) of the anesthetic buccal to the upper canine. Test teeth were assessed with electrical stimulation to determine onset and duration of pulpal anesthesia. Soft tissue anesthesia was assessed by pin-prick test, and injection discomfort was assessed using a visual analogue scale. The statistical analysis of the data recorded was carried out with one-way ANOVA and post-hoc tests.

Results

The 1.2-mL dose induced faster onset of pulpal anesthesia, a higher success rate, and a longer duration of soft tissue/pulpal anesthesia than was achieved with 0.6?mL (P?Conclusion Maxillary infiltration anesthesia with articaine and epinephrine has a faster onset, a greater success rate, and a longer duration when a volume of 1.2?mL is used than when volumes less than 1.0?mL are used. Palatal tissues were anesthetized with the highest concentration (1.2?mL) in our study (30% of cases).     

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.     

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.     

The anesthetic efficacy of 4 percent articaine 1:200,000 epinephrine: two controlled clinical trials

OBJECTIVE: The authors conducted two double-blinded, randomized, multicenter clinical trials to determine the efficacy and clinical anesthetic characteristics of 4 percent articaine hydrochloride (HCl) with 1:200,000 epinephrine (A200) as compared with those of 4 percent articaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine (A100) and 4 percent articaine HCl without epinephrine (Aw/o). METHODS: During separate testing sessions, members of the authors' research team used three articaine study formulations to induce either inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia (Trial 1) or maxillary infiltration anesthesia (Trial 2). In each trial, subjects received, in a randomized sequence, each of the three formulations to determine efficacy (success rate) and anesthetic characteristics (onset time and duration). The authors evaluated pulpal anesthesia via subjects' response to electric pulp testing (EPT). RESULTS: A total of 126 subjects were enrolled in the two studies (63 subjects in each trial). In both mandibular and maxillary trials, the success rates for inducing profound anesthesia (EPT score > 80), the mean onset times and the mean durations of anesthesia were similar for both epinephrine-containing formulations (A200 and A100). In subjects who received the formulation containing no epinephrine (Aw/o), the success rate for profound anesthesia was significantly less. CONCLUSION: These studies demonstrated that the inclusion of epinephrine in 4 percent articaine anesthetic formulations is essential for achieving profound anesthesia. The authors found that the A200 formulation provided a level of pulpal anesthesia comparable with that of the A100 formulation.     

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.     

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.

Hemostatic and anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine HCl with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine when administered intraorally for periodontal surgery

BACKGROUND: The objective of this double-masked, randomized, multicenter crossover study was to compare the efficacy of 4% articaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine (A100) to 4% articaine HCl with 1:200,000 epinephrine (A200) for providing effective local anesthesia and hemostasis for periodontal surgery. METHODS: Anesthetic efficacy was based on patient self-report and lack of need for reinjection during the surgical procedures. Hemostatic properties of the formulations were compared using ratings of the surgeons' ability to visualize the surgical field and expectation for bleeding. The volume of blood collected during each surgical session also was measured and compared. RESULTS: Forty-two adult subjects (26 males and 16 females, mean age 46.3 +/- 9.7 years) diagnosed with moderate to severe periodontal disease requiring local anesthesia for matched bilateral periodontal surgery were enrolled and completed the study. Subjects reported satisfactory surgical anesthesia following the A100 and A200 formulations; no supplemental local anesthesia was administered. Significant differences between the A100 and A200 treatments were found for the surgeons' ability to visualize the surgical field (rated as clear 83.3% of the time with A100 and 59.5% of the time with A200; P = 0.008), bleeding expectation (rated as equal to or better than expected 85.7% of the time with A100 and 71.4% of the time with A200; P = 0.034), and volume of blood loss (54.9 +/- 36.0 ml for A100 and 70.2 +/- 53.0 ml for A200; P = 0.018). Sixteen patients experienced 27 mild or moderate adverse events; the most common were postoperative pain (nine patients) and swelling (eight patients). Six adverse events may have been related to treatment. The frequency of adverse events did not vary between formulations. CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing periodontal surgery, 4% articaine anesthetic formulations containing epinephrine (1:100,000 or 1:200,000) provided excellent surgical pain control. For patients who can tolerate higher amounts of epinephrine, the 4% articaine 1:100,000 epinephrine formulation had the additional therapeutic advantage of providing better visualization of the surgical field and less bleeding.     

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.     

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

     

The pharmacokinetics and cardiovascular effects of high-dose articaine with 1:100,000 and 1:200,000 epinephrine

OBJECTIVES: The authors conducted a randomized, double-blind, two-way crossover clinical trial to compare the pharmacokinetics and cardiovascular effects of 11.9 milliliters of 4 percent articaine hydrochloride (HCl) plus 1:100,000 epinephrine (A100) with those of 11.9 mL of 4 percent articaine HCl plus 1:200,000 epinephrine (A200). METHODS: During two testing sessions, the authors administered injections of A100 and A200 over a seven-minute period (in one-cartridge doses unless otherwise noted): maxillary right first molar infiltration, maxillary left first molar infiltration, maxillary right first premolar infiltration, maxillary left first premolar infiltration, right inferior alveolar injection, left inferior alveolar injection, right long buccal infiltration (one-half cartridge) and left long buccal infiltration (one-half cartridge). They analyzed venous blood samples for articaine levels. They used noninvasive acoustic tonometry to measure a variety of cardiovascular parameters over a two-hour period. RESULTS: Plasma concentration curves of articaine over time were similar for both solutions, with peak concentrations and times to maximum concentration being 2,037 nanograms per milliliter and 22 minutes for A100 and 2,145 ng/mL and 22 minutes for A200. At the 10-minute point, the mean systolic blood pressure and heart rate were significantly elevated (P < .05) with A100 versus A200. CONCLUSIONS: Maximum dose recommendations for the A100 solution also can be applied to the A200 solution. A200 produces less cardiovascular stimulation than does A100. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: A200 is as safe as A100, and may be preferable to A100 in patients with cardiovascular disease and in those taking drugs that reportedly enhance the systemic effects of epinephrine.