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

Articaine Infiltrations of the Mandibular Lateral Incisor-Is It Volume or Location of the Infiltrations That Affect Success? A Prospective, Randomized Crossover Study

INTRODUCTION

A combination labial infiltration (1.8 mL) plus lingual infiltration (1.8 mL) of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in the mandibular lateral incisor was found superior to a labial infiltration of 1.8 mL of the same solution. However, it is not known whether the volume or the location had the greatest effect. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective, randomized crossover study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of a labial infiltration of a 3.6 mL volume of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine compared with labial infiltration (1.8 mL) plus lingual infiltration (1.8 mL) of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in the mandibular lateral incisor.

METHODS

One hundred subjects randomly received 2 sets of injections, using 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, consisting of labial and lingual infiltrations of 1.8 mL (3.6 mL total) and 2 labial infiltrations of 1.8 mL (3.6 mL total) of the mandibular lateral incisor in 2 separate appointments. Electric pulp testing was used to determine anesthetic success (highest 80/80 reading). The data were analyzed statistically.

RESULTS

The labial and lingual combination exhibited a significantly higher anesthetic success rate (97%) when compared with the 2 labial infiltrations (74%) and had significantly higher 80/80s readings from 1 minute to 58 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this clinical study, a combination labial plus lingual infiltration using a 3.6-mL volume of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine significantly increased pulpal anesthetic success for the mandibular lateral incisor when compared with a labial infiltration using a 3.6-mL volume of articaine. Therefore, location of the infiltrations was more important than volume.

Articaine versus Lidocaine in only buccal infiltration anesthesia for the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth. A prospective split-mouth randomized-controlled clinical study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of a single labial infiltration of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine for the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth without an additional lingual injection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective, randomized-controlled, split-mouth clinical study was implemented. Healthy adult patients seeking bilateral extraction of mandibular anterior teeth were included in this study. Teeth extractions were randomly assigned to two equal groups, where one mandibular anterior tooth was extracted using a solitary labial infiltration of either 4% articaine (the study group) or 2% lidocaine (the control group). After 14 days, the other mandibular anterior tooth was extracted using the other local anesthetic agent. The selection of the anesthetic agent injected in the first session was done in a randomized fashion. After 5 min of local anesthetic injection, the tooth was extracted, and each patient was asked to record the intensity of the extraction pain using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients were included in the study. The efficacy of a single labial injection for mandibular anterior teeth extraction was established by the fact that none of the patients in the study or control group required re-administration of local anesthesia. The mean VAS for pain control during tooth extraction was 1.16 ± 0.93 for the articaine group and 1.71 ± 0.90 for the lidocaine group. The pain score showed a statistically significant decrease in the articaine group compared to that in the lidocaine group (P = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

Although the anesthetic effects of only buccal infiltration of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine for extraction of mandibular anterior teeth were comparable, the use of 4% articaine would have more effective and predictable outcomes.

CLINICALTRIALS

ORG: (ID: NCT05223075) 3/2/2022.

Comparison of dental anesthetic efficacy between the periodontal intraligamentary anesthesia and other infiltration anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Uncertainty exists regarding the pain scores and the success rate of intraligamentary anesthesia compared to other infiltration anesthesia. Based on the conditions of clinical anesthesia techniques, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of intraligamentary anesthesia with other infiltration anesthesia.

Methods

The search was carried out in PubMed Central, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (via OVID), Embase (via OVID), and Scopus from the inception to March 26, 2023.

Results

Seven eligible randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The results indicated no significant difference in the success rate (RR = 0.96; 95% CI [0.81-1.14]; p = 0.65; I²= 73%) and visual analog scale (VAS) during dental procedures (MD = 3.81; 95% CI [-0.54-8.16]; p = 0.09; I²= 97%) between intraligamentary anesthesia and other infiltration anesthesia. However, intraligamentary anesthesia exhibited a higher VAS score during injection than other infiltration anesthesia (MD = 8.83; 95% CI [4.86-12.79]; p < 0.0001; I²= 90%). A subgroup analysis according to infiltration techniques showed that supraperiosteal anesthesia had a lower VAS score during dental procedures than intraligamentary anesthesia.

Conclusions

Intraligamentary anesthesia and other infiltration anesthesias have the same success rate and pain during dental procedures. However, the pain during injection of intraligamentary anesthesia is heavier than that of other infiltration anesthesia.

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.

Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

Pain during dental treatment, which is a common fear of patients, can be controlled successfully by local anaesthetic. Several different local anaesthetic formulations and techniques are available to dentists.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objectives were to compare the success of anaesthesia, the speed of onset and duration of anaesthesia, and systemic and local adverse effects amongst different local anaesthetic formulations for dental anaesthesia. We define success of anaesthesia as absence of pain during a dental procedure, or a negative response to electric pulp testing or other simulated scenario tests. We define dental anaesthesia as anaesthesia given at the time of any dental intervention.Our secondary objective was to report on patients' experience of the procedures carried out.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (OVID SP), Embase, CINAHL PLUS, WEB OF SCIENCE, and other resources up to 31 January 2018. Other resources included trial registries, handsearched journals, conference proceedings, bibliographies/reference lists, and unpublished research.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing different formulations of local anaesthetic used for clinical procedures or simulated scenarios. Studies could apply a parallel or cross-over design.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological approaches for data collection and analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 123 studies (19,223 participants) in the review. We pooled data from 68 studies (6615 participants) for meta-analysis, yielding 23 comparisons of local anaesthetic and 57 outcomes with 14 different formulations. Only 10 outcomes from eight comparisons involved clinical testing.We assessed the included studies as having low risk of bias in most domains. Seventy-three studies had at least one domain with unclear risk of bias. Fifteen studies had at least one domain with high risk of bias due to inadequate sequence generation, allocation concealment, masking of local anaesthetic cartridges for administrators or outcome assessors, or participant dropout or exclusion.We reported results for the eight most important comparisons.Success of anaesthesiaWhen the success of anaesthesia in posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring root canal treatment is tested, 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine, may be superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (31% with 2% lidocaine vs 49% with 4% articaine; risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 2.32; 4 parallel studies; 203 participants; low-quality evidence).When the success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures and surgical procedures/periodontal treatment, respectively, was tested, 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin (66% with 3% prilocaine vs 76% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; 2 parallel studies; 907 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and 4% prilocaine plain (71% with 4% prilocaine vs 83% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; 2 parallel studies; 228 participants; low-quality evidence) were inferior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine.Comparative effects of 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine on success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures are uncertain (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.02; 3 parallel studies; 930 participants; very low-quality evidence).Comparative effects of 0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.83; 2 cross-over studies; 37 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.07 to 5.12; 2 cross-over studies; 31 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction are uncertain.Comparative effects of 2% mepivacaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 3.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 23.82; 1 parallel and 1 cross-over study; 110 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.25 to 5.45; 2 parallel studies; 68 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction and teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring endodontic access and instrumentation, respectively, are uncertain.For remaining outcomes, assessing success of dental local anaesthesia via meta-analyses was not possible.Onset and duration of anaesthesiaFor comparisons assessing onset and duration, no clinical studies met our outcome definitions.Adverse effects (continuous pain measured on 170-mm Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (VAS))Differences in post-injection pain between 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine are small, as measured on a VAS (mean difference (MD) 4.74 mm, 95% CI -1.98 to 11.46 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 314 interventions; moderate-quality evidence). Lidocaine probably resulted in slightly less post-injection pain than articaine (MD 6.41 mm, 95% CI 1.01 to 11.80 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 309 interventions; moderate-quality evidence) on the same VAS.For remaining comparisons assessing local and systemic adverse effects, meta-analyses were not possible. Other adverse effects were rare and minor.Patients' experiencePatients' experience of procedures was not assessed owing to lack of data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For success (absence of pain), low-quality evidence suggests that 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine for root treating of posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis, and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 4% prilocaine plain when surgical procedures/periodontal treatment was provided. Moderate-quality evidence shows that 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin when surgical procedures were performed.Adverse events were rare. Moderate-quality evidence shows no difference in pain on injection when 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine were compared, although lidocaine resulted in slightly less pain following injection.Many outcomes tested our primary objectives in simulated scenarios, although clinical alternatives may not be possible.Further studies are needed to increase the strength of the evidence. These studies should be clearly reported, have low risk of bias with adequate sample size, and provide data in a format that will allow meta-analysis. Once assessed, results of the 34 'Studies awaiting classification (full text unavailable)' may alter the conclusions of the review.

Effective anaesthesia of the acutely inflamed pulp: part 2. Clinical strategies

Achieving profound pulpal anaesthesia in a mandibular molar diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis can be argued to be the most testing of dental anaesthetic challenges. Following discussion on the possible reasons for this occurrence in part 1, part 2 outlines the various local anaesthetic techniques that practitioners can use to overcome the acutely inflamed mandibular molar. They should then be able to apply these same principles to help anaesthetise any other tooth presenting with an acutely inflamed pulp. Techniques are discussed in detail along with key variables that have been associated with having an impact on the anaesthetic efficacy. This is to bring to light factors that can aid anaesthetic success as well as dispel common misnomers.

Evaluation of Efficacy of Intraligamentary Injection Technique for Extraction of Mandibular Teeth-A Prospective Study

INTRODUCTION

Fear of dental pain is one of the most common reasons for delaying dental treatment. Local Anaesthesia (LA) is the most commonly employed technique of achieving pain control in dentistry. Pterygomandibular Nerve Block (PNB), for achieving mandibular anaesthesia has been the traditional technique used and is associated with a few set of complications which include pain, nerve injury, trismus, and rarely facial nerve palsy, and sustained soft tissue anaesthesia. These complications have resulted in a rapid need for research on alternative local anaesthetic techniques.

AIM

This study was undertaken with the objective to determine pain, duration, profoundness and complications associated with administration of Intraligamentary Injection Technique (ILT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was conducted on 194 patients (male=122, female=72) who reported for dental extractions in mandibular posteriors. The ILT was administered with ligajet intraligamentary jet injector using cartridge containing lignocaine hydrochloride 2% with adrenaline 1:80000 and a 30 gauge needle at buccal (mesiobuccal), lingual, mesial and distal aspect of the mandibular molars. The data was analyzed by using statistical computer software SPSS 11.0 (Statistical package for social sciences 11.O version of SPSS Inc.). Median was derived for Pain on Injection (PI) and Pain during Procedure (PP). Mean and standard deviation was derived for Duration of Anaesthesia (DA).

RESULTS

Various advantages were seen such as, localized soft tissue anaesthesia, decreased PI (SD=0.83), and minimal PP (SD=0.94). The DA (SD=4.62) and mean value of 24.06 minutes.

CONCLUSION

This study is one of its kinds where intraligamentary injection has been used for extraction of mandibular molars. It was also successfully used in patients with exaggerated gag reflex and patients suffering from trismus due to oral submucous fibrosis. The intraligamentary injection technique can thus be used effectively to anaesthetize mandibular molars, as a primary technique for extraction of mandibular posterior teeth.

The local anaesthetic effect of a dental laser prior to cavity preparation: a pilot volunteer study

OBJECTIVES

It has been suggested that laser preconditioning can produce dental anaesthesia. This study aimed to assess the response of the dental pulp to laser preconditioning.

METHODS

The effects of laser preconditioning, sham laser (negative control), and composite curing light (positive control) on the response of the dental pulp to electric pulp testing was investigated in this double-blind crossover trial with six volunteers. The Er,Cr:YSGG laser or curing light was shone on a premolar tooth in a sweeping motion for 30 seconds (in the sham treatment, the laser was not activated) in blindfolded volunteers subjected to a consistent aural stimulus. Treatment method at each visit was randomized and performed by a researcher not involved in pulp testing. Teeth were pulp tested twice initially by another member of the research team to get baseline readings, immediately following the treatment, and thereafter every two minutes for 10 minutes. Results were analyzed using analysis of variance and an independent-sample t-test.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in pulpal response between treatments (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Laser preconditioning did not affect pulpal response as measured by an electronic pulp tester. Laser preconditioning did not result in any pain or noticeable symptoms for both teeth and soft tissues.

Microanatomy of the infraorbital canal and its connecting canals in the maxilla using 3-D reconstruction of microcomputed tomographic images

The current study investigated the anatomy of the infraorbital canal (IOC) and its related small canals in the maxilla. Twenty-eight hemimaxillae from human cadavers were studied. The samples were scanned using microcomputed tomography, and then images were three-dimensionally reconstructed using computer software. The branch point of the canal into the anterior superior alveolar nerve from the IOC occurred at about one third along the length of the IOC in the anterior direction. Just over half of the cases had 1 canal. The branch arose either laterally (21/28) or inferiorly (7/28) from the IOC. There was a canal located at the inferior lateral border of the piriform aperture in all cases. The distribution of the canals in the maxilla is represented indirectly by the course and distribution of the nerve and blood vessels therein. This distribution could explain various phenomena encountered in the clinical field.

Local anesthesia part 2: technical considerations

An earlier paper by Becker and Reed provided an in-depth review of the pharmacology of local anesthetics. This continuing education article will discuss the importance to the safe and effective delivery of these drugs, including needle gauge, traditional and alternative injection techniques, and methods to make injections more comfortable to patients.

Efficacy and safety of intraseptal and periodontal ligament anesthesia achieved by computer-controlled articaine + epinephrine delivery: a dose-finding study

OBJECTIVES

The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the dose-dependent anesthetic efficacy of the intraseptal anesthesia (ISA) and periodontal ligament anesthesia (PLA) obtained with different volumes of 4 % articaine and 1:100,000 epinephrine (Ar + Ep) in human mandibular premolars, using a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system (CCLADS). The safety profile of Ar + Ep was also studied by investigating the stability of cardiovascular parameters.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred and eighty randomly selected healthy volunteers (ASA I) entered the single-blinded study to receive 16 mg + 4 μg, 24 mg + 6 μg, and 32 mg + 8 μg of Ar + Ep, obtained with different volumes (0.4, 0.6, and 0.8 ml, respectively), for the ISA and PLA. Success rate, onset, and duration of profound pulpal anesthesia were evaluated by the electrical pulp tester, while the width of the anesthetic field and duration of soft tissue anesthesia were recorded using the pinprick testing. A monitor was used for the measurement of cardiovascular parameters.

RESULTS

A dose-dependent duration of pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia was obtained only by the ISA. Success rate, duration of both pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia, and its width were significantly better in the ISA compared with the PLA. No significant cardiovascular changes were seen in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

It can be suggested that 0.6 and 0.8 ml of 4 % Ar + 1:100,000 Ep, delivered by CCLADS, offer high success rate and effective clinical parameters of ISA as a primary anesthesia.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

It seems that dental procedures requiring profound pulpal, bone, and soft tissue anesthesia could be effectively and safely obtained by mentioned anesthetic protocol.

Infiltration anesthesia in the mandible

Infiltration is preferred to regional block techniques in the maxilla as the former offers a number of advantages. This paper considers the evidence for the efficacy of infiltration anesthesia in the mandible in the adult dentition, both as a primary and as a supplemental method.

The efficacy of infiltration anaesthesia for adult mandibular incisors: a randomised double-blind cross-over trial comparing articaine and lidocaine buccal and buccal plus lingual infiltrations

AIM

To compare the efficacy of 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine both with 1:100,000 adrenaline in anaesthetising the pulps of mandibular incisors.

METHODS

Thirty-one healthy adult volunteers received the following local anaesthetic regimens adjacent to a mandibular central incisor: 1) buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL lidocaine plus dummy lingual injection (LB), 2) buccal plus lingual infiltrations of 0.9 mL lidocaine (LBL), 3) buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL articaine plus dummy lingual injection (AB), 4) buccal plus lingual infiltrations of 0.9 mL articaine (ABL). Pulp sensitivities of the central incisor and contralateral lateral incisor were assessed electronically. Anaesthetic efficacy was determined by two methods: 1) Recording the number of episodes with no responses to maximal electronic pulp tester stimulation during the course of the study period, 2) recording the number of volunteers with no response to maximal pulp tester stimulation within 15 min and maintained for 45 min (defined as sustained anaesthesia). Data were analysed by McNemar, chi-square, Mann-Whitney and paired t-tests.

RESULTS

For both test teeth, the number of episodes of no sensation on maximal stimulation was significantly greater after articaine than lidocaine for both techniques. The split buccal plus lingual dose was more effective than the buccal injection alone for both solutions (p <0.001). 4% articaine was more effective than 2% lidocaine when comparing sustained anaesthesia in both teeth for each technique (p <0.001), however, there was no difference in sustained anaesthesia between techniques for either tooth or solution.

CONCLUSIONS

4% articaine was more effective than 2% lidocaine (both with 1:100,000 adrenaline) in anaesthetising the pulps of lower incisor teeth after buccal or buccal plus lingual infiltrations.

Aspirations and solutions--a 20 year journey through dental local anaesthetics

This paper describes clinical and laboratory investigations concerned with the delivery, comfort, systemic effects and efficacy of dental local anaesthesia. Factors influencing the aspirating ability of dental local anaesthetic delivery systems are discussed. The effects of adrenaline in dental local anaesthetic solutions on plasma potassium levels and on the transplanted heart are described. The use of an infiltration technique as an alternative to the inferior alveolar nerve block in the mandible is discussed.

Anesthetic efficacy of articaine and lidocaine for incisive/mental nerve block

INTRODUCTION

The incisive/mental nerve block (IMNB) could be an alternative to the inferior alveolar nerve block in the mandibular anterior teeth. The effectiveness of articaine has not been tested in IMNB.

METHODS

This prospective randomized double-blind crossover study compared the anesthetic efficacy of 0.6 mL 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine, both with 1:100.000 epinephrine administered as IMNB to 40 volunteers in two sessions. Pulpal anesthesia of lateral incisor through premolars was tested with an electric pulp tester. The injection and postoperative pain were evaluated by using visual analog scales. The onset (time from the end of injection to the absence of pulpal response) and duration of pulpal anesthesia (time recorded before two positive responses to the pulp tester) and the anesthesia success (two consecutive readings of 80 without response and onset<or=10 minutes) were measured.

RESULTS

Articaine provided a higher success rate (p<0.001) of anesthesia than lidocaine for the lateral incisor (32.5%), the canine (55%), and the first (72.5%) and second (80%) premolars and a faster onset (p<0.05) for canine and increased duration (p<0.05) of anesthesia for premolars. The median duration of premolars anesthesia was 10 and 20 minutes, respectively, with lidocaine and articaine. There were no differences in pain scores between the solutions (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Articaine promoted higher anesthesia success and longer duration of anesthesia than lidocaine for most of the teeth after IMNB although anesthesia success could be considered clinically appropriated only for premolars. The volume of local anesthetic used in the present study may not be appropriate for procedures lasting longer than 10 minutes.

Intraseptal vs. periodontal ligament anaesthesia for maxillary tooth extraction: quality of local anaesthesia and haemodynamic response

There is no data concerning the use of the intraseptal anaesthesia (ISA) for single tooth extraction. The aims of this study were to compare the clinical efficacy and haemodynamic responses of the ISA with the periodontal ligament anaesthesia (PLA) for single tooth extraction. Thirty-five randomly selected healthy patients (ASA I) undergoing maxillary lateral incisors extraction entered the study. Onset of anaesthesia, the width of the anaesthetic field and duration of anaesthesia were recorded by pinprick testing. Intensity of anaesthesia was evaluated on a visual analogue scale. Haemodynamic parameters were recorded simultaneously at different time points after anaesthesia injection. The two techniques of local anaesthesia did not show statistically significant differences regarding the success rate and onset of anaesthesia, while the duration of the ISA on the buccal site was significantly longer in comparison with the PLA. The intensity of the achieved anaesthesia, estimated by the experienced pain during procedure, pointed out that pain was recorded in 24% of cases in the ISA group, and in 19% in the PLA group without significant differences. Postoperative pain was found to be smaller in the ISA group (70.9% of treated sites) than in the PLA group (81.3% of treated sites); however, this difference was not significant. Although the heart rate increased in both groups, there were no significant differences in the patients' haemodynamic response between the ISA and the PLA. The results of the present study indicate that both techniques are useful and suitable for the routine tooth extraction.

The efficacy of six local anesthetic formulations used for posterior mandibular buccal infiltration anesthesia

OBJECTIVE

The authors conducted a randomized, double-blind clinical trial to evaluate pulpal anesthesia achieved after mandibular infiltration of five commonly marketed dental local anesthetic formulations as compared with a control formulation of lidocaine with epinephrine.

METHODS

The authors evaluated 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (L100) against 4 percent articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (A100), 4 percent articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine (A200), 4 percent prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine (P200), 3 percent mepivacaine without vasoconstrictor (Mw/o) and 0.5 percent bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine (B200). This repeated-treatment trial involved 18 healthy participants. The investigators administered mandibular infiltration injections (six sessions per participant) of 0.9 milliliters of anesthetic into the buccal fold adjacent to the distal root of the mandibular first molar. The authors determined anesthetic efficacy across a 20-minute period by measuring changes in sensory threshold to electrical pulp test (EPT) stimulation.

RESULTS

Twelve female and six male participants (mean age, 24.9 years; range, 18-53 years) completed the study. The maximum mean increase from baseline of EPT measurements for the six formulations were 43.5 percent for L100, 44.8 percent for B200, 51.2 percent for P200, 66.9 percent for A200, 68.3 percent for Mw/o and 77.3 percent for A100 (A100 versus L100, P = .029). Adverse reactions were minor and not formulation dependent.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The authors found that mandibular infiltration with 0.9 mL of the tested dental anesthetics could induce only partial pulpal anesthesia, a level likely to be inadequate for most dental procedures. When compared with L100, only the A100 induced statistically greater pulpal anesthesia after mandibular buccal infiltration.

Efficacy of intraosseous injections of anesthetic in children and adolescents

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to determine the efficacy of the intraosseous (IO) injections of anesthetic as a primary technique in children and adolescents.

STUDY DESIGN

A cohort of 181 children and adolescents underwent a total of 225 sessions of IO injections of 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine using the Quick Sleeper 2 system.

RESULTS

Evaluations could be performed in 215 sessions (171 patients, 247 teeth), yielding success rates of 91.2% (sessions) and 91.9% (teeth). The success rate was 95% (133 of 140) for temporary teeth (endodontics 96.6%, restorations 100%, extractions 88%) and 87.9% (94 of 107) for permanent teeth (endodontics 92.3%, restorations 89.9%, extractions 75%). No difference was noted in terms of age (P > .05). No cases of biting of mucosa or postinjection pain were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

The IO injection of anesthetic using a computer-controlled osseous perforation and delivery system can be considered as a good alternative or supplement to classic infiltration techniques in children and adolescents.

Influence of Injection Speed on the Effectiveness of Incisive/Mental Nerve Block: A Randomized, Controlled, Double-blind Study in Adult Volunteers

This randomized, double-blind trial tested the null hypothesis that speed of deposition has no influence on the injection discomfort, efficacy, distribution, and duration of pulp anesthesia after incisive/mental nerve block in adult volunteers. Thirty-eight subjects received incisive/mental nerve blocks of 2.0 mL lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine slowly over 60 seconds or rapidly over 15 seconds at least 1 week apart. Pulp anesthesia was assessed electronically to 45 minutes after injection. Injection discomfort was self-recorded on visual analogue scales. Overall, 48.7% of volunteers developed pulp anesthesia in first molars, 81.8% in bicuspids, and 38.5% in lateral incisors. The mean duration of pulp anesthesia was 19.1 minutes for first molars, 28.5 minutes for bicuspids, and 19.0 minutes for lateral incisors. Speed of injection had no significant influence on anesthetic success or duration of anesthesia for individual teeth. Slow injection was significantly more comfortable than rapid injection (P < .001). The null hypothesis was supported, although slow injection was more comfortable.

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.

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).

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.

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.