Efficacy of buccal infiltration anaesthesia with articaine for extraction of mandibular molars: a clinical trial

It is hard to provide adequate anaesthesia by infiltration of lidocaine into the mandible because of the thick buccal cortex. An inferior alveolar nerve block is often used but has a high failure rate, which has led research workers to look for an anaesthetic agent that will anaesthetise the lower teeth by buccal infiltration alone. We have assessed the efficacy of buccal infiltration anaesthesia with articaine by designing a double-blind controlled clinical trial in 133 patients who required extraction of mandibular molars. They were randomly divided into two groups and given infiltration anaesthesia with either 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine by a single injection deep into the mucobuccal fold at the site of the tooth. After five minutes the mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual sides of the tooth were probed. Pain at this time or later during dissection of soft tissue by periosteal elevator was considered as failure, and an inferior alveolar nerve block was given. The amount of pain, and the number of patients who developed pain, were significantly greater in the group given 2% lidocaine (p < 0.001). The two groups did not differ significantly in age or sex. Articaine is more successful in providing adequate depth of anaesthesia, but its efficacy was not sufficient to replace an inferior alveolar nerve block for extraction of mandibular molars (Registration code: IRCT2016062627111N2).     

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.     

Articaine and lignocaine efficiency in infiltration anaesthesia: a pilot study

AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the onset of action of pulpal and soft tissue anaesthesia, and pain experience after buccal and palatal infiltrative injections with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline, and 2% lignocaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline. METHOD: A double blind cross-over study was conducted with 20 healthy adult subjects who, in two appointments at least two weeks apart, randomly received an infiltration anaesthesia with the solutions in the buccal and palatal regions of the upper right canine. The tooth was tested with a pulp tester before (to establish its baseline response), and after the injection, until return to the base threshold level. The pain experience caused by palatal injection was verified by the visual analogue scale (VAS). Data were analysed using Wilcoxons test (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: There were no significant statistical differences between the solutions with respect to VAS (p = 0.45), onset of action (p = 0.80) and pulpal (p = 0.08) and soft tissue (p = 0.18) anaesthesia duration, although pulpal anaesthesia may have reached statistical significance if a higher number of volunteers had been used. CONCLUSION: Under the conditions of this study it can be concluded that both anaesthetic solutions showed similar pain experience.     

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 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.     

Efficacy of epinephrine‐free articaine compared to articaine with epinephrine (1:100 000) for maxillary infiltration,a randomised clinical trial

The selection of local anaesthetic in dental practice is essential to the patient′s comfort and the success of the treatment. Many patients prefer anaesthesia even for short treatments. Articaine is a local anaesthetic commonly used for dental practice. The duration of the effect of articaine on the nerve fibres is not yet precisely reported. This study was aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of 4% articaine with and without epinephrine in treatment of occlusal caries. Thirty healthy patients were included in this randomised double‐blind study. Each subject received 4% articaine with and without epinephrine (1:100 000). Maxillary infiltration was used for occlusal caries of the maxillary premolars on right and left sides. Quantitative sensory testing (QST) was performed in the innervation area of the infraorbital nerve, and pulp vitality test was performed on restoration‐free canines. Duration of anaesthesia was longer when articaine with epinephrine was used. Articaine without epinephrine showed faster recovery of sensory blockade compared to articaine with epinephrine. The epinephrine‐containing agent, when compared to the plain articaine solution, showed significantly stronger and longer anaesthetic efficacy on the soft tissue by all parameters of QST. Articaine with epinephrine caused a more reliable pulpal analgesia. A pain‐free treatment of the soft tissue up to 15 minutes can be performed under the vasoconstrictor‐free anaesthetic without causing long‐lasting numbness. Epinephrine‐containing articaine delivers a longer, more effective anaesthesia and is preferable for caries treatments and longer invasive treatments of the soft tissue.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Effect of palatal injections on pulpal blood flow in premolars

Abstract – The effect of palatal infiltration injections using 2% lignocaine hydrochloride with 1:80,000 adrenaline was evaluated for sound maxillary first premolar teeth. The influence of the injections on pulpal blood flow and local anaesthesia was investigated. Ten human volunteers were given the following injections on different days: 1 ml palatal infiltration; 1 ml buccal infiltration; 1 ml palatal and 1 ml buccal infiltration; and 2 ml buccal infiltration. The blood flow was observed with a laser Doppler flowmeter with the probes held against the buccal surfaces of the teeth by a splint. Blood flow was recorded digitally on a computer in machine units. Pulpal anaesthesia was assessed using a monopolar electric pulp tester. All injections significantly reduced blood flow from baseline levels (p < 0.05). The 1-ml palatal injection produced a significantly longer period of reduced blood flow (mean 40 min) compared with the other injections (p < 0.05). The duration of blood flow reduction was shorter than the duration of pulpal anaesthesia for every injection. Only seven out of 10 palatal injections achieved pulpal anaesthesia. The 2-ml buccal injection and the combined buccal and palatal injections produced significantly longer anaesthesia than the 1-ml buccal injection (p < 0.05).     

Comparison of the buccal injection versus buccal and palatal injection for extraction of permanent maxillary posterior teeth using 4% articaine: a split mouth study

In spite of the development of modern injection techniques, palatal injection is still a painful experience for patients. A plethora of techniques has been tested to reduce this. One such technique that has been claimed to work is administering articaine on the buccal side alone for the extraction of maxillary teeth due to its ability to diffuse through soft and hard tissues more reliably than other local anaesthetics. This split mouth study evaluated the efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100000 adrenaline to avoid the painful palatal injection for bilateral permanent maxillary tooth extraction in 50 patients. The 100mm 10 point Visual Analog Scale/Wong Baker Facial Pain Scale was used to rate the amount of pain felt on injection, on probing the tissues prior to, or during, extraction, and one hour postoperatively. Although the buccal injection alone resulted in lower pain while injecting the anaesthetic, it did not result in the absence of pain before tooth extraction as has been suggested by various studies. A total of 74% patients required a palatal injection on the study side. We conclude that in most cases, when using a buccal injection alone, one cannot rely on the diffusion of articaine for effective palatal anaesthesia. Despite this, we suggest that as an initial option in young patients, the operator can consider avoiding the painful palatal injection by the use of articaine to prevent aversion to dental treatment. Postoperatively, the difference in pain levels was not statistically significant and no patient showed signs of lesions at the injection sites.     

仅用阿替卡因颊侧浸润麻醉拔除上颌第三磨牙的临床对照研究

目的：评价上颌第三磨牙拔除术中阿替卡因颊侧浸润注射对腭侧软组织的麻醉作用，讨论常规腭侧浸润麻醉注射是否必须。方法：28例拔除双侧上颌第三磨牙患者，每位患者作为其自身对照。对照侧利用盐酸阿替卡因行颊侧浸润麻醉及腭侧浸润麻醉，实验侧仅行颊侧浸润麻醉。注射3min后常规方法拔除患牙。利用100mm直观模拟标度尺（VAS）及问卷调查获得患者拔牙时的痛觉数据。结果：实验侧和对照侧的疼痛感觉（VAS值）没有显著性差异（P〉0．05），拔牙过程中的疼痛均可接受。结论：仅用阿替卡因颊侧浸润麻醉可顺利拔除上颌第三磨牙，无需常规腭侧浸润麻醉，从而避免腭侧注射的疼痛不适。     

碧兰麻用于牙髓病治疗局部麻醉的效果观察

目的:探讨碧兰麻用于麻醉牙髓时的方法及效果。方法:急性牙髓炎患牙94颗,慢性牙髓炎患牙68颗,作唇(颊)侧根尖区黏膜下浸润麻醉(单侧麻醉),观察麻醉效果;对上、下磨牙、下前磨牙设颊、舌侧麻醉组(双侧麻醉组)与上述同名牙的单侧麻醉组对照。所得结果用四格表χ2检验。结果:162颗牙髓炎患牙,单侧麻醉显效率为72.8%。麻醉效果与牙髓的急、慢性炎症状态无显著关系(P>0.05)。下磨牙作双侧麻醉,效果明显优于单侧麻醉(P<0.05)。结论:牙髓炎患牙作牙髓摘除术时,用碧兰麻作单侧麻醉具有良好的效果,建议对下磨牙作双侧麻醉。     

Injection pain of prilocaine plain, mepivacaine plain, articaine with epinephrine, and lidocaine with epinephrine

In a double-blind study design, 1,391 consecutive patients in a general dental practice received one of four different local anesthetics (articaine with epinephrine, lidocaine with epinephrine, mepivacaine plain, or prilocaine plain) via a maxillary buccal infiltration, palatal infiltration, or inferior alveolar block injection. The anesthetics were administered under clinical conditions by one of two dentists. Immediately after receiving the injection, patients rated the pain from each injection on a ten-point scale. The pain response was analyzed according to the dentist administering the injection, the location of injection, the patient's gender, and the type of anesthetic administered. Injection of prilocaine plain produced significantly lower pain scores than lidocaine with epinephrine, mepivacaine plain, or articaine with epinephrine.     

比较非手术治疗对重度慢性牙周炎磨牙不同部位牙周病变的疗效

目的:根据磨牙中重度慢性牙周炎发生不同部位病变比较非手术治疗的疗效。方法:根据单个磨牙深牙周袋发生的部位(颊侧或舌/腭侧)将收集的上、下颌磨牙各分为两组(上颌I组、上颌II组、下颌I组、下颌II组),观察各组治疗前后牙周指标的变化,比较疗效差异。结果:4组病例治疗后6周各项牙周指标均较基线有明显改善,差异有显著性(P<0.01)。上颌两组间及下颌两组间比较,可见6周时上颌II组的PD、BI、CAL均高于上颌I组,差异有显著性(P<0.01);下颌II组的PD、BI、CAL高于下颌I组,差异有显著性(P<0.01)。结论:发生在磨牙的牙周炎症无论是上颌还是下颌,颊侧病变的预后均好于舌/腭侧,差异有显著性。     

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

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

A rare case of multiple talon cusps in three siblings

Talon cusp is an uncommon anomaly, whose etiology may be disturbances in the morphodifferentiation stage. Dens in dente is also a rare anomaly that is challenging in clinic as it may cause pulp necrosis or periapical lesions due to the communication with the oral cavity. This article reports multiple talon cusps on permanent maxillary and mandibular incisors and molars in 3 siblings. A 9-year-old boy presented with structures like nodules, shaped as cylindrical cones with a sharp point or a raindrop with deep developmental fissures on the palatal aspect of the maxillary central incisors, lingual aspect of the mandibular central incisors and labial aspect of both mandibular first molars. The buccal surface of the maxillary right central incisor was also affected. Some of them exhibited dens in dente. His 15-year-old sister had prominent talon cusps on the palatal surface of maxillary central incisors and buccal surface of the mandibular first molars and mandibular left second molar. His 7-year-old brother had only one trace talon on the maxillary left central incisor. No syndrome was identified in the patients. In conclusion, genetic inheritance may be a causative factor in talon cusp.     

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.

Comparative investigations on the efficacy of articaine 4% (epinephrine 1:200,000) and articaine 2% (epinephrine 1:200,000) in local infiltration anaesthesia in dentistry—a randomised double-blind study

A randomised double-blind study investigated 155 patients with tooth extractions in the mandibular and maxillary jaws for a loss of anaesthetic potency when reducing the concentration of the active in articaine solutions. Tests were performed on the preparations of articaine 4% with a 1:200,000 addition of epinephrine (Ultracain D-S) and articaine 2% with a 1:200,000 addition of epinephrine (Ultracain 2%-Suprarenin). Local infiltration anaesthesia was the chosen method of anaesthesia. The most noticeable difference observed between the two injection solutions concerned the duration of anaesthesia, which was significantly shortened under the low-dose solution. The 4% articaine solution did not prove superior in local anaesthetic effect. Articaine 2% with epinephrine 1:200,000, therefore, can be considered a suitable local anaesthetic for tooth extractions.     

Buccal bone plate thickness of the Asian people

Distances from the apex to the buccal bone plate were measured on the computed tomography (CT) images of 1806 teeth from 66 patients, using an image analyzer program (Image-Pro Plus, Ver. 4.0, Media Cybernetics). In the mandible, the mean distance from the distal apex of the mandibular second molar to the buccal bone plate was the largest distance measured, at 8.51 mm, followed by distance from the mesial root to the buccal bone (7.34 mm). In the mandibular first molar, the mean distal and mesial bone thicknesses were 5.18 mm and 4.09 mm, respectively. However, when there were two distal roots, the distance of the disto-lingual root to the buccal plate was found to be 9.52 mm, which constitutes the greatest measured thickness. In the maxillary buccal roots, the distances from the mesio-buccal and disto-buccal root of the second molar to the buccal bone plate were the largest, at 4.63 mm and 3.61 mm, respectively. The average distances from the palatal apex of the maxillary first and second molars to the buccal bone plate were 10.69 mm and 10.17 mm, respectively, while, from the palatal bone plate, average distances of 3.15 mm and 3.08 mm were measured. Special considerations, such as bony lid approach, lingual approach, or intentional replantation may be required, especially when a patient has a surgical need in the second molars and the disto-lingual root of the mandibular first molar, or in the palatal root of the maxillary molars.