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

Articaine Versus Mepivacaine in Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block for Patients With Irreversible Pulpitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) as an anesthetic strategy has shown conflicting results in terms of efficacy in the treatment of patients with irreversible pulpitis. Mepivacaine and articaine are anesthetic agents commonly used in the IANB technique for pulpal anesthesia. This review aimed to compare mepivacaine and articaine regarding pain and success rate. We conducted a search on the databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), and Cochrane Central for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing mepivacaine versus articaine until September 2024. The primary outcome of interest was success rate, while the secondary outcomes were pain intensity assessed by a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) and incidence of severe pain. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effect model using STATA. Five RCTs including 568 patients were included in the final analysis. While there was no significant difference between the two studied groups regarding the success rate (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.21, p=0.54), articaine significantly reduced the pain intensity compared to mepivacaine (MD: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.86], p<0.001). Moreover, no significant difference was observed regarding the incidence of severe pain. Articaine reduced the intensity of pain post-procedure, with comparable results regarding success rate and incidence of severe pain with mepivacaine. Further large-volume RCTs are warranted to study the differences between the two options in the long term.

Primary and supplementary anesthetic efficacy of a modified two-step buccal infiltration of 4% articaine in mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate a modified two-step buccal infiltration (MBI) of 1.7 mL 4% articaine as primary or supplemental anesthesia in mandibular first and second molars diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and eight patients with SIP were randomly assigned to one of three groups (n = 36). They were given an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) of 2% lidocaine with 1:80.000 epinephrine or a primary MBI of 4% articaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine in the IANB and MBI groups, respectively. Patients in the IANB + MBI group received an IANB followed by an MBI. Pain levels during the injection, access cavity preparation, and initial filing were recorded on the Heft-Parker visual analog scale (HP-VAS). No or mild pain (HP-VAS ≤ 54) upon access cavity preparation and initial filing was considered a success. Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

MBI (77.8%) and IANB + MBI (94.4%) had both significantly higher success rates than IANB (50.0%) (P < .001). However, when the Bonferroni adjustment was applied, there was no statistically significant difference between the MBI and IANB + MBI techniques (P = .041 > .017). MBI was associated with significantly less injection pain than IANB (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both primary and supplemental MBI with 4% articaine were superior to IANB with 2% lidocaine in mandibular first and second molars diagnosed with SIP. Further research may be needed to confirm the findings of this study.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The findings of this study suggest that supplemental or primary MBI can be a clinically viable alternative to IANB, which has a relatively low success rate when managing mandibular molars diagnosed with SIP.

Comparison of Efficacy of Lidocaine and Articaine as Inferior Alveolar Nerve Blocking Agents in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: Randomized Controlled Trial

Background and Objectives: Lidocaine Hydrochloride has been the standard choice for local anesthesia in dentistry and Articaine's unique structure and growing popularity make it a viable alternative. Due to contradictory results in prior research and a scarcity of trials conducted in the Pakistani population, this study aims to compare the anesthetic efficacy of Lidocaine with Articaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Materials and Methods: This double-blinded, randomized controlled trial included 152 patients who were selected by consecutive non-probability sampling. The participants included patients who presented with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth (molars and premolars) and depicted normal apical tissue radiographically. The patients were equally and randomly divided into two groups. The control group received 2% Lidocaine Hydrochloride injections, and the experiment group received 4% Articaine Hydrochloride injections. Participants scored their pain on the HP-VAS both before and after the administration of anesthesia. A value of 54 mm or less on the scale indicated effective anesthesia. The data obtained were analyzed using SPSS. Chi-square test was applied to analyze data for statistical significance. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the efficacy of the two anesthetic agents. During access cavity preparation, Lidocaine demonstrated a success rate of 93%, whereas Articaine exhibited a slightly higher success rate of 97%. During initial instrumentation, the success rates for Lidocaine and Articaine were 72% and 71%, respectively. This suggests that both Lidocaine and Articaine were effective in achieving anesthesia during the dental procedure in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, with Articaine showing a slightly better success rate, although the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions: The anesthetic efficacy of Articaine is similar to that of lidocaine in subjects with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Hence, Articaine can serve as an alternative to Lidocaine for local anesthesia administration in dentistry.

Comparative study of articaine 4% versus lidocaine 2% in the local anesthesia of permanent mandibular first molars affected by MIH: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

The current study compares articaine 4% with lidocaine 2% in terms of injection pain and effectiveness of anesthesia when treating permanent mandibular first molars (PMFMs) affected by molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH). In addition to comparing the complications of local anesthesia for both solutions.

METHODS

The sample included 20 children. Each child was randomly assigned to either articaine 4% or lidocaine 2% in their first session with the other solution being used at the subsequent session. Injection pain and the effectiveness of anesthesia were assessed using the Wong-Baker Faces® Pain Rating Scale and the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) scale. Parents were asked to report any complications of local anesthesia. The Wilcoxon-matched pairs signed-rank test was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Patients experienced greater pain when receiving articaine 4% injections according to both scales, differences were statistically significant when using the Wong-Baker Faces® Pain Rating scale (p < 0.05). Whereas, the FLACC scale did not show such differences (P > 0.05). Although there were no significant differences between the two solutions regarding the effectiveness of local anesthesia according to both scales (P > 0.05), articaine 4% was clinically found to be more effective than lidocaine 2%. No complications of local anesthesia were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Articaine 4% injection was more painful than lidocaine 2%. However, both solutions were effective in anesthetizing PMFMs affected by MIH and without anesthetic complications in the studied sample.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trial, NCT05200884, ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05200884 ).

Efficacy of articaine versus mepivacaine administered as different supplementary local anesthetic techniques after a failed inferior alveolar nerve block with lidocaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis: An in vivo study

Aim

The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy of articaine versus mepivacaine administered as different supplementary local anesthetic techniques after a failed inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with lidocaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis.

Materials and Methods

A total of 120 patients were included in the study. Patients were given IANB with 2 ml of 2% lidocaine hydrochloride with 1:80,000 epinephrine. Patients who showed subjective symptoms of IANB but did not secure pulpal anesthesia were randomly allocated to one of the following four groups by random sampling for supplementary local anesthesia - Group 1: buccal infiltration (BI) with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, Group 2: four-site intraligamentary (IL) injection with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, Group 3: BI with 2% mepivacaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, and Group 4: four-site IL injection with 2% mepivacaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine.

Results

Group 1 - BI with articaine provided anesthesia success in 27 cases (90%, n = 30). Group 2 - IL injection with articaine provided anesthesia success in 20 cases (66.67%, n = 30). Group 3 - BI with mepivacaine provided anesthesia success in 21 cases (70%, n = 30). Group 4 - IL injection with mepivacaine provided anesthesia success in 15 cases (50%, n = 30). A significant difference between the four groups was found.

Conclusion

In patients with a mandibular first molar exhibiting symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, block injection with lidocaine along with supplemental BI with articaine allowed more pain-free treatments. Articaine showed better results when compared with mepivacaine.

Anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration versus intraligamentary injection in mandibular first and second molars with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized clinical trial

Background

To compare the anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration (BI) (1.7 ml) versus intraligamentary (IL) injection containing 0.4 ml of 4% articaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine after an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 1.7 ml 2% lidocaine in the first and second mandibular molars diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis (IP).

Methods

One hundred subjects diagnosed with IP of either the mandibular first (n = 50) or second molars (n = 50) and failed profound anesthesia following an IANB were selected. They randomly received either the IL or BI techniques of anesthesia. Pain scores on a 170 mm Heft-Parker visual analog scale were recorded initially, before, and during supplemental injections. Furthermore, pulse rate was measured before and after each supplemental injection. During the access cavity preparation and initial filing, no or mild pain was assumed to indicate anesthetic success. The chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U test, and independent samples t-test were used for the analyses.

Results

The overall success rates were 80% in the IL group and 74% in the BI group, with no significant difference (P = 0.63). In the first molars, there was no significant difference between the two techniques (P = 0.088). In the second molars, IL injection resulted in a significantly higher success rate (P = 0.017) than BI. IL injection was statistically more successful (P = 0.034) in the second molars (92%) than in the first molars (68%). However, BI was significantly more successful (P = 0.047) in the first molars (88%) than in the second molars (64%). The mean pulse rate increase was significantly higher in the IL group than in the BI group (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Both the IL and BI techniques were advantageous when used as supplemental injections. However, more favorable outcomes were observed when the second molars received IL injection and the first molars received BI.

Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Success of 2% Mepivacaine versus 4% Articaine in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis in Mandibular Molars: A Randomized Double-Blind Single-Centre Clinical Trial

AIM

To assess inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) success of 2% mepivacaine (Scandonest 2%, Septodont, France) and 4% articaine (Septanest 4%, Septodont) in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP) in mandibular molars during access cavity preparation and instrumentation.

METHODOLOGY

Three hundred and thirty patients with moderate-to-severe pain in mandibular molars with SIP randomly received either 3.6 mL 2% mepivacaine hydrochloride with 1:100 000 adrenalin or 3.4mL 4% articaine hydrochloride with 1:100 000 adrenalin (n=165). Intraoperative pain (IOP) intensity was assessed during access cavity preparation and canal instrumentation using 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS). Overall success was considered if the patient felt no-to-mild pain without the need of supplemental anaesthesia throughout treatment; the incidence of need for supplemental anaesthesia was also recorded. Data were statistically analyzed using Mann Whitney U and Chi² (χ² ) tests. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of anaesthetic failure was calculated. The effect of predisposing factors on outcome variables was assessed using multivariable regression analyses. None of the participants reported any adverse effects.

RESULTS

Baseline variables were balanced between groups (p>0.05). The IOP intensity during access cavity preparation and canal instrumentation was similar for both groups (p>0.05). IOP intensity was associated with preoperative pain intensity and tooth type (p<0.05). Overall anaesthetic success rate was 35.8% for mepivacaine and 41.2% for articaine (p>0.05) with a relative risk of failure [95%CI] 1.09 [0.92, 1.30]. The need for supplemental anaesthesia occurred 43.6% and 38.2% with mepivacaine and articaine respectively (p>0.05; RR [95%CI]: 1.14 [0.88, 1.48]). Preoperative pain level and age were associated with the need for supplemental anaesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

2% mepivacaine and 4% articaine demonstrate similar IANB success rates for mandibular molars with SIP. Intraoperative pain experience during endodontic treatment can be associated with preoperative pain, tooth type and age.

Present status and future directions - Mechanisms and management of local anaesthetic failures

Pain control during root canal treatment is of utmost importance for both the patient and the dental practitioner and many studies have investigated ways of overcoming problems with gaining adequate anaesthesia during treatment. The PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched for evidence-based studies regarding local anaesthesia for root canal treatment. Many variables, including premedication, pain during needle insertion, pain on injection, premedication with various types of drugs, volume of anaesthetic solutions, supplemental anaesthetic techniques, and additives to the anaesthetic solutions, may influence pain perception during root canal treatment. Differences between teeth with healthy pulps versus those with irreversible pulpitis should be considered when the effects of variables are interpreted. There are several concerns regarding the methodologies used in studies that have evaluated anaesthesia success rates. There are some conditions that may help to predict a patient's pain during root canal treatment and these conditions could be overcome either by employing methods such as premedication with a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug prior to the treatment visit or by using supplementary anaesthetic techniques before or during the treatment. However, authors need to be more careful when reporting details of their studies to reduce concerns regarding their study bias.

Efficacy of 4% articaine vs 2% lidocaine in mandibular and maxillary block and infiltration anaesthesia in patients with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the performance of 4% Articaine vs. 2% Lidocaine for mandibular and maxillary block and infiltration anaesthesia in patients with irreversible pulpitis (IP).

METHODS

PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Open Gray were used to conduct a thorough literature search. A manual search of the reference lists of the publications found was also carried out. Two reviewers critically evaluated the papers for inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data extraction was done on the selected publications. The Cochrane Collaboration Tool and the Minors checklist were used to assess the quality of the selected studies for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies, respectively. The RevMan software was used to perform a meta-analysis of the pooled data and subgroups according to the technique of anaesthetic solution delivery, as well as a sensitivity analysis (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

A total of twenty-six papers were included in the qualitative synthesis, with twenty-two of them being included in the meta-analysis. There were fifteen studies with a low potential for bias, three with a moderate potential for bias, and seven with a high potential for bias. The combined results of the 19 trials in the tooth level unit revealed that 4% articaine had a success rate 1.37 times greater than 2% lidocaine for mandibular teeth (RR, 1.37; 95% CI [1.17-1.62]; P = 0.0002). For the maxillary buccal infiltration method, the combined results from the three trials revealed that 4% articaine resulted in a success rate 1.06 times greater than 2% lidocaine (RR, 1.06; 95% CI [0.95-1.2]; P = 0.3). Excluding subgroups with a single study in sensitivity analysis for mandibular teeth revealed a substantial improvement in the success rate of the articaine group in treating IP when compared to the lidocaine group.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this meta-analysis back up the claim that articaine is more effective than lidocaine in providing anaesthesia in patients with IP. PROSPERO Registration No.: CRD42020204606 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020204606).

Anesthetic efficacy of primary and supplemental buccal/lingual infiltration in patients with irreversible pulpitis in human mandibular molars: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Achieving profound anesthesia in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis is a tedious task. This review aimed at evaluating the success of buccal/lingual infiltrations administered with a primary inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) injection or as a supplemental injection after the failure of the primary injection in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with irreversible pulpitis in human mandibular molars. The review question was “What will be the success of primary and supplemental infiltration injection in the endodontic treatment of patients with irreversible pulpitis in human mandibular molars?” We searched electronic databases, including Pubmed, Scopus, and Ebsco host and we did a comprehensive manual search. The review protocol was framed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. We included clinical studies that evaluated and compared the anesthetic outcomes of primary IANB with primary and/or supplementary infiltration injections. Standard evaluation of the included studies was performed and suitable data and inferences were assessed. Twenty-six studies were included, of which 13 were selected for the meta-analysis. In the forest plot representation of the studies evaluating infiltrations, the combined risk ratio (RR) was 1.88 (95% CI: 1.49, 2.37), in favor of the secondary infiltrations with a statistical heterogeneity of 77%. The forest plot analysis for studies comparing primary IANB + infiltration versus primary IANB alone showed a low heterogeneity (0%). The included studies had similar RRs and the combined RR was 1.84 (95% CI: 1.44, 2.34). These findings suggest that supplemental infiltrations given along with a primary IANB provide a better success rate. L'Abbe plots were generated to measure the statistical heterogeneity among the studies. Trial sequential analysis suggested that the number of patients included in the analysis was adequate. Based on the qualitative and quantitative analyses, we concluded that the infiltration technique, either as a primary injection or as a supplementary injection, given after the failure of primary IANB, increases the overall anesthetic efficacy.

Comparing Articaine brands: A randomized non-inferiority controlled trial

Introduction

The substitution of reference drugs for similar, new or existing drugs in the market is a dilemma present in daily dental procedures. In order to decide whether or not to adopt a new drug in relation to the reference, a clinical trial can provide the necessary evidence.

Methods

A total of 179 healthy volunteers (18-25 years) requiring extraction of mandibular third molars completed the study. Subjects were randomized into 4 groups: right, left, Arteek-SP and Septanest. Allocations consisted of 4% Articaine hydrochloride with 1:10000 epinephrine. The primary aim of this randomized controlled trial was to determine whether the test drug Arteek-SP was noninferior by a margin of 10% in the proportion of patients with total absence of pain, compared to the reference drug Septanest in the extraction of mandibular third molars using inferior alveolar nerve blocks. Secondary outcomes included, hemodynamic parameters, volume (mL), pain scores assessed during one visit and reported postoperative discomfort assessed during 8 days. Noninferiority was declared if total absence of pain for both groups was equal to 0.9, with a significance level of 5% (P < 0.05) and power at 90% (β = 0.1) at 95% confidence level.

Results

Arteek-SP was applied during the first surgery to 90 volunteers (50.28%) and Septanest was applied to 89 subjects (49.72%). Less than 10% difference was identified, in the proportion of patients with total absence of tooth pain P < 0.05 and in the gum P < 0.1, at 95% CI, when Arteek-SP was applied first in comparison with Septanest, establishing noninferiority.

Conclusion

The clinical performance of the test drug Arteek-SP is noninferior to the reference drug Septanest. They can be considered interchangeable in terms of cost or convenience.

Registration

ClinicalTrials.org, number NCT4166890.

Anaesthetic Efficacy of 4% Articaine in Comparison with 2% Lidocaine as Intraligamentary Injections after an Ineffective Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Mandibular Molars with Irreversible Pulpitis: A Prospective Randomised Triple-Blind Clinical Trial

The objective of the current study was to compare the anaesthetic efficacy of supplemental intraligamentary (IL) injection of 4% articaine with that of 2% lidocaine in the mandibular first and second molars with irreversible pulpitis after an ineffective inferior alveolar nerve block injection (IANB) using the same anaesthetic in a randomised triple-blind clinical trial. Seventy-six adult patients, who were diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis in the mandibular first or second molars, were divided into 2 groups and received IANB randomly. In patients with lip numbness, anaesthesia was evaluated with the cold and electrical pulp (EPT) tests, and if the reported number on EPT was below 100, supplemental IL injection was administered using the same anaesthetic. The teeth were retested after 5 minutes. The Heft-Parker visual analogue scale was used to evaluate pain after IANB and IL injections. Statistical analysis was performed using repeated measures ANOVA, chi-square, and independent-sample and paired-sample t-tests. The results showed that there was no significant difference in the success rates of supplemental IL and IANB injections between articaine and lidocaine. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the success rates of supplemental IL injection with lidocaine between the mandibular first and second molars. However, there was a significant difference in the success rates of supplemental IL injection with articaine between the mandibular first and second molars. Moreover, supplemental IL injections indicated no significant difference in the anaesthetic efficacy between articaine and lidocaine; nevertheless, they were more effective in the mandibular second molars, especially with articaine.

Intraosseous anesthesia in symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: Impact of bone thickness on perception and duration of pain

Background

Intraosseous anesthesia (IO) allows the anesthetic solution to be injected directly into the cancellous bone. The anesthetic solution immediately reaches the periapical region, and thus the axonal area of the nerve, where it can temporarily disable the sodium pump. The effect is felt almost without any time delay, and only a small amount of anesthetic solution is required.

Methods

This study aims to investigate the efficacy of IO using the Anesto® device after infiltration anesthesia (IA) and/or inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia (IANB) failed to work in symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (hot tooth). The 33 patients included in the study were treated additionally with 1.7 ml articaine hydrochloride with 1:100,000 epinephrine hydrochloride (Ultracain® D-S, Sanofi-Aventis, Frankfurt, Germany) IO.

Results

The electrical pulp test showed that 95.76% of the volunteers reacted positively to the combination of IANB or IA with the IO. In women, the additive IO was effective at 97.22%. In men, the IO led to pain elimination in 94.00% of cases. The duration of the IO was less than a quarter of an hour (13.03 min). The IO worked longer in women than in men (13.61 min vs. 12.33 min). Overall, more than every third tooth that needed trepanation was located in the posterior area of the mandible (36.4%). Treatment of hot teeth in this area was associated with an increased pulse rate and increased residual pain. There was a moderate correlation (Spearman-Rho [IRI] = 0.280) between the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score and bone density, and a significant correlation (IRI = 0.612) between subjective residual pain and bone width. The IO resulted in a moderate, transient increase in the pulse rate by approximately 20 bpm. This is similar to the temporary increase in heart rate after conventional anesthesia techniques in non-preloaded patients and can be considered clinically irrelevant.

Conclusion

IO with the Anesto® device as an extension and deepening of local pain elimination is recommended for the treatment of hot teeth.

Comparison of articaine, lidocaine and mepivacaine for buccal infiltration after inferior alveolar nerve block in mandibular posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis

Aims To compare the anaesthetic efficacy of articaine, lidocaine and mepivacaine for buccal infiltration (BI) following lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in mandibular posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis.Materials and methods Patients with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth and unsuccessful IANB were randomly assigned to three groups: articaine group (n = 52), lidocaine group (n = 52) and mepivacaine group (n = 52). They were instructed to rate the pain experienced at four phases (before the injection, after IANB, after BI and during endodontic access) on a Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (VAS). Success was defined as the ability to access and instrument the tooth with no pain or mild pain (VAS rating ≤54 mm) after BI.Results Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that articaine was associated with a higher success rate compared with lidocaine (OR = 3.89, 95% CI: 1.35-11.27; P = 0.02) and mepivacaine (OR = 3.67, 95% CI: 1.24-9.75; P = 0.01), after controlling for age, gender and initial pain. VAS ratings were significantly lower in the articaine group compared with those in the lidocaine group and mepivacaine group after BI and during endodontic access (P <0.01).Conclusion Articaine as a supplemental BI following IANB is a more successful anaesthetic agent in mandibular posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis compared with lidocaine and mepivacaine.

Anesthetic efficacy of articaine/epinephrine plus mannitol in comparison with articaine/epinephrine anesthesia for inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Background. It is difficult to achieve successful pulpal anesthesia in mandibular posterior teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. The present study aimed to compare the effect of articaine/epinephrine anesthesia with articaine/epinephrine at a combination of 0.5 mol/mL of mannitol for the inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in patients presenting with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in the mandibular first molar tooth.

Methods. One hundred patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in the mandibular first molar tooth were selected and randomly divided into two groups based on the injection method. The first group underwent an IANB technique with 1.8 mL of articaine, whereas the second group received 2.9 mL of a formulation, consisting of 1.8 mL of articaine plus 1.1 mL of 0.5 mol/L of mannitol. Fifteen minutes after injections and anesthesia of the lip, the access cavity was prepared. According to the visual analog scale (VAS) criteria, no pain or mild pain for caries removal, pulp exposure and canal instrumentation were regarded as success. Chi-squared test was used for the analysis of data. The level of significance was set at 0.05.

Results. The success rate in the group with articaine/epinephrine anesthesia plus mannitol was higher than that in the group with articaine/epinephrine anesthesia, with no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05).

Conclusion. It was concluded, under the limitations of this study, that adding mannitol to articaine/epinephrine anesthesia did not increase the success of IANB in mandibular posterior teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

The influence of endodontic treatment on blood pressure reduction in patients with vital irreversible pulpitis

Background

During endodontic treatment, endodontists must be aware of the various factors that may decrease or increase blood pressure. This study aimed to assess the mean percentages of systolic, diastolic, and arterial blood pressure (MSBP, MDAP, MABP) reduction in patients with vital irreversible pulpitis in teeth and who were treated at three visits to endodontists in three age groups (20–34 years, 35–50 years, 51–65 years).

Materials and methods

A total of 100 teeth with vital irreversible pulpitis from 100 patients were included. All patients underwent 3 visits for endodontic treatment. The 1st visit included removal of vital pulp tissue and a determination of working length, the 2nd visit included canal preparation and widening, and at the 3rd visit the canal was obturated and sealed by gutta percha and sealer. Blood pressure for all patients was checked and documented once before starting treatment and three times during treatment at different intervals during all visits.

Results

There were significantly higher percentage reductions in MSBP, MDBP, and MABP at the 1st visit for endodontic treatment in comparison to other visits (2nd and 3rd) for all patients. Additionally, there were significantly higher percentage reductions in MSBP, MDBP, and MABP at the 1st visit for endodontic treatment in comparison to other visits in males and females, for all age groups, both anesthesia injection-type groups (infiltration and block), and all treated tooth types except mandibular anterior teeth, and there were nonsignificant differences among groups. However, there were nonsignificant differences in MSBP, MDBP, and MABP between males and females, between infiltration and block injection groups and in relation to teeth types at all visits.

Conclusions

The reduction of blood pressure in patients undergoing endodontic treatment of vital teeth with irreversible pulpits is common, especially at the 1st visit for pulp extirpation.

Efficacy of Endo-Ice followed by intrapulpal ice application as an adjunct to inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis-a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effect of Endo-Ice followed by intrapulpal ice application for reducing pain during pulp extirpation in mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty patients diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis participated in the present study. Subjects were randomly allocated to any one of the following groups: control group-inferior alveolar nerve block with lignocaine (2%) adrenaline (1:80000), articaine group-inferior alveolar nerve block with lignocaine (2%) adrenaline (1:80000) + Buccal infiltration with articaine (4%) with adrenaline (1:100000); or cold group-inferior alveolar nerve block with lignocaine (2%) adrenaline (1:80000) + cold application. The outcome assessor measured the level of pain during access opening and pulp extirpation using the visual analogue scale. The anxiety level of the patient was also measured.

RESULTS

During access opening, there was a significant difference in the pain reduction in the articaine group when compared to cold and control group (p value = 0.02). During pulp extirpation, cold group and articaine group showed a significant reduction in pain levels as compared to the control group (p value = 0.001). There was no difference in the pain level during pulp extirpation among the two test arms (articaine and cold) (p value = 0.99). Further, cold significantly reduced the level of anxiety when compared to the articaine or control group (p value = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Hence, cold is a simple, supplementary technique in reducing pain during pulp extirpation.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Application of cold may help in minimizing the fear of additional injection in managing pain during endodontic treatment.