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.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

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).     

Pulpal anaesthesia for mandibular permanent first molar teeth: a double-blind randomized cross-over trial comparing buccal and buccal plus lingual infiltration injections in volunteers

AIM: To compare the efficacy of buccal and buccal plus lingual infiltration anaesthesia for permanent mandibular first molars. METHODOLOGY: Thirty one healthy adult volunteers received each of the following methods of anaesthesia for a mandibular first molar tooth in a randomised order, 1) Buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL and needle penetration lingually. 2) Buccal infiltration of 0.9 mL, plus lingual infiltration of 0.9 mL. Two percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was used. Electrical pulp testing was performed before, and every 2 minutes for 30 minutes after injection. A successful outcome was recorded as the absence of pulp sensation on two or more consecutive maximal pulp tester stimulations (80 microA). Injection discomfort was assessed using visual analogue scales. Data were compared with McNemar and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks tests. RESULTS: Buccal infiltration was successful in 38.7% of cases compared to 32.3% after combined infiltrations; the difference was not significant (P = 0.63). Buccal infiltration produced more episodes of no response to maximum stimulation than buccal and lingual infiltrations (129 and 114 respectively), this difference was not significant (P = 0.11). Peak anaesthetic effect occurred around 10-14 minutes after injection. There was no difference in injection discomfort between buccal injections of 0.9 mL and 1.8 mL of solution (P = 0.90). Lingual injection was more uncomfortable than lingual penetration (P = O.O02). CONCLUSIONS: Buccal and buccal plus lingual infiltrations did not differ in their efficacy in producing anaesthesia of permanent first molar teeth.     

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.     

An evaluation of buccal infiltrations and inferior alveolar nerve blocks in pulpal anesthesia for mandibular first molars

We compared the anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANBs) with that of buccal infiltrations (BIs) in mandibular first molars. Using a crossover design, all subjects received a standard IANB or a BI of 1.7 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline (Septanest; Septodont, Saint-Maru-des-Fosses, France) on two appointments separated by at least 1 week. Pulpal anesthesia was determined by using an electric pulp tester. Electric pulp testing was repeated at 5, 8, 11, 15, 20, 25, and 30 minutes after the injections. Anesthesia was considered successful if the subject did not respond to the maximum output of the pulp tester at two or more consecutive time points. Fifty-four percent of the BI and 43% of the IANB were successful; the difference was not significant (p = 0.34). The onset of pulpal anesthesia was significantly faster with BI (p = 0.03). In conclusion, BI with 4% articaine for mandibular first molars can be a useful alternative for clinicians because compared with IANB it has a faster onset and a similar success rate.     

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.     

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.     

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Pulpal Anesthesia Strategies during Endodontic Treatment of Permanent Mandibular Molars with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

IntroductionSeveral strategies have been investigated for achieving successful pulpal anesthesia during endodontic treatment of mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. However, comprehensive evaluation and identification of the most efficacious and safe intervention are lacking. We aimed to determine this using network meta-analysis.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, and Scopus databases were searched. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Eligible randomized controlled trials were meta-analyzed to estimate the treatment effects (odd ratios [ORs]; 95% credible interval (CrI) and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA)]. CINeMA software (University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland) was used to assess the quality of results.ResultsThirty-seven interventions from 46 studies were identified. Compared with the common practice of an inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% lidocaine, a supplemental intraosseous injection was ranked the most efficacious with very low to moderate confidence (2% lidocaine + preoperative nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs] + acetaminophen [OR = 74; 95% CrI, 15–470; SUCRA = 97%], 2% lidocaine + preoperative NSAIDs [OR = 46; 95% CrI, 8–420; SUCRA = 94%], 2% lidocaine [OR = 33; 95% CrI, 14–80; SUCRA = 93%], 2% lidocaine + preoperative opioids + acetaminophen [OR = 20; 95% CrI, 4.4–98; SUCRA = 86%], and 4% articaine [OR = 20; 95% CrI, 6.3–96; SUCRA = 87%]) followed by supplemental buccal and lingual infiltrations using 4% articaine + preoperative NSAIDs (OR = 18; 95% CrI, 6–56; SUCRA = 86%; very low confidence). No major safety concerns were reported.ConclusionsVery low- to moderate-quality evidence suggests intraosseous injection using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or buccal and lingual infiltrations of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine are superior strategies to achieve pulpal anesthesia during endodontic treatment of mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Preoperative NSAIDs or opioids with or without acetaminophen may increase the efficacy of these 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.     

Speed of injection influences efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve blocks: a double-blind randomized controlled trial in volunteers

This randomized double-blind crossover trial investigated the efficacy and discomfort associated with slow (60 seconds) and rapid (15 seconds) inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) using 2.0 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine in securing mandibular first molar, premolar and lateral incisor pulp anesthesia in 38 healthy adult volunteers. Episodes of maximal stimulation (80 microA) without sensation on electronic pulp testing were recorded. Injection discomfort was self-recorded by volunteers on 100 mm visual analogue scales. Data were analyzed by McNemar, Friedman, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks, and paired t tests. Slow IANB produced more episodes of no response to maximal pulp stimulation than rapid IANB in molars (220 episodes versus 159, p < 0.001), premolars (253 episodes versus 216, p = 0.003) and lateral incisors (119 episodes versus 99, p = 0.049). Slow IANB was more comfortable than rapid IANB (p = 0.021).     

2种局麻药对鼻咽癌放疗后下颌磨牙急性牙髓炎麻醉效果比较

目的探讨必兰与斯康杜尼对鼻咽癌患者放射治疗后下颌磨牙急性牙髓炎的麻醉效果。方法选取鼻咽癌患者放射治疗后下颌磨牙急性牙髓炎患者134例,分为必兰组和斯康杜尼组,每组67例,2组均采用颊侧浸润麻醉,进行开髓术,对比2组麻醉效果。结果必兰组麻醉效果优于斯康杜尼组,麻醉效果总体有效率必兰组为95.5%,高于斯康杜尼组的85.1%,2组差异有统计学意义（χ^2=4.17,P=0.125）。结论在鼻咽癌患者放射治疗后下颌磨牙急性牙髓炎的开髓术治疗中,采用必兰进行颊侧浸润麻醉麻醉效果好于斯康杜尼。     

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 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.     

Pulpal anaesthesia for mandibular central incisor teeth: a comparison of infiltration and intraligamentary injections

AIM: This study compared the anaesthetic efficacy of infiltration and intraligamentary injections in the permanent mandibular central incisor. METHODOLOGY: Twelve healthy volunteers received each of the following methods of anaesthesia for one of their mandibular central incisors over four visits. 1 Labial infiltration of 1.0 mL. 2 Lingual infiltration of 1.0 mL. 3 Labial infiltration of 0.5 mL plus lingual infiltration of 0.5 mL. 4 Intraligamentary injection of (118 mL.Two percent lidocaine with 1: 80 000 adrenaline and 30 gauge needles were used throughout. Electrical pulp testing was performed before injection and every 2 min up to 30 min after the injection. Injection discomfort was recorded on a 100-mm visual analogue scale. Data were compared with ANOVA, Student's t-test and chi2 tests. RESULTS: Anaesthesia varied between techniques(F = 9.3, P < 0.001). The incidence of anaesthesia at any time was as follows: 50% success for labial infiltration; 50% success for lingual infiltration: 92% success for combined labial and lingual infiltration; 0% success for intraligamentary injections (chi2 = 20; P < 0.001).The mean (+/-SD) VAS score for intraligamentary injection discomfort was 28 +/- 12 mm, for buccal infiltrations 17 +/- 8 mm and for lingual infiltrations 16 +16 mm. Intraligamentary injections were more uncomfortable than buccal (t = 3.7: P < 0.01) and lingual infiltrations (t = 2.67: P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The most reliable method of the techniques investigated for obtaining pulpal anaesthesia in mandibular permanent central incisors was a combination of labial and lingual infiltration. Intraligamentary injections were unreliable and were more uncomfortable than infiltrations in the mandibular central incisor region.     

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.