Buffered 2% articaine versus non-buffered 4% articaine in maxillary infiltration: randomized clinical trial

Buffered 2% articaine in buccal infiltration of mandibular molars: a randomized triple-blind clinical trial

This crossover study aimed to compare the anesthetic effects of buffered 2% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine with that of non-buffered 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine. Forty-seven volunteers were administered two doses of anesthesia in the buccal region of the second mandibular molars in two sessions using 1.8 mL of different local anesthetic solutions. The onset time and duration of pulp anesthesia, soft tissue pressure pain threshold, and the score of pain on puncture and burning during injection were evaluated. The operator, volunteers, and statistician were blinded. There were no significant differences in the parameters: onset of soft tissue anesthesia (p = 0.80), duration of soft tissue anesthesia (p = 0.10), onset of pulpal anesthesia in the second (p = 0.28) and first molars (p = 0.45), duration of pulp anesthesia of the second (p = 0.60) and first molars (p = 0.30), pain during puncture (p = 0.82) and injection (p = 0.80). No significant adverse events were observed. Buffered 2% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine did not differ from non-buffered 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine considering anesthetic success, safety, onset, duration of anesthesia, and pain on injection.

Physiology of pregnancy and oral local anesthesia considerations

Background

Safe and effective local anesthesia is a prerequisite for emergency oral surgeries and most dental treatments. Pregnancy is characterized by complex physiological changes, and increased sensitivity to pain. Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to oral diseases, such as caries, gingivitis, pyogenic granuloma and third molar pericoronitis. Maternally administered drugs can affect the fetus through the placenta. Therefore, many physicians and patients are reluctant to provide or accept necessary local anesthesia, which leads to delays in the condition and adverse consequences. This review is intended to comprehensively discuss the instructions for local anesthesia in the oral treatment of pregnant patients.

Methodology

An in-depth search on Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed to review articles concerned with maternal and fetal physiology, local anesthetic pharmacology, and their applications for oral treatment.

Results

Standard oral local anesthesia is safe throughout the pregnancy. At present, 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine is considered to be the anesthetic agent that best balances safety and efficacy for pregnant women. Maternal and fetal considerations must be taken into account to accommodate the physiological and pharmacological changes in the gestation period. Semi-supine position, blood pressure monitoring, and reassurance are suggested for high-risk mothers to reduce the risk of transient changes in blood pressure, hypoxemia, and hypoglycemia. For patients with underlying diseases, such as eclampsia, hypertension, hypotension, and gestational diabetes, the physicians should use epinephrine cautiously and control the dose of anesthetic. New local anesthesia formulations and equipment, which contribute to minimizing injection pain and relieving the anxiety, have and are being developed but remain understudied.

Conclusions

Understanding the physiological and pharmacological changes during pregnancy is essential to ensure the safety and efficiency of local anesthesia. Optimal outcomes for the mother and fetus hinge on a robust understanding of the physiologic alterations and the appropriate selection of anesthetic drugs and approaches.

Anesthetic efficacy of buffered 4% articaine for mandibular first molar infiltration: a crossover clinical trial

Background

The limited studies on the effect of buffering on the clinical efficacy of articaine have reported controversial results. The purpose of this study was to clinically compare the pain of injection, anesthetic success, onset, and duration of pulpal anesthesia of buffered 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 versus a non-buffered 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 formulation for buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar.

Methods

Sixty-three volunteers were enrolled in the study. All volunteers received two injections consisting of a single mandibular first molar buccal infiltration with 1.8 ml of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 and 1.8 ml of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 buffered with 8.4% sodium bicarbonate. The infiltrations were applied in two separate appointments spaced at least one week apart. After injection of the anesthetic solution at the examined site, the first molar was pulp-tested every 2 min for the next 60 min.

Results

Successful pulpal anesthesia was recorded in 69.8% of cases using non-buffered articaine solution and 76.2% of cases using buffered articaine solution, with no significant difference between the formulations (P = 0.219). The mean time of anesthesia onset for the volunteers with successful anesthetic outcome in both formulations (n = 43) was 6.6 ± 1.6 min for the non-buffered articaine solution and 4.5 ± 1.6 min for the buffered solution, which differed significantly (P = 0.001). In the same volunteers, the mean duration of pulpal anesthesia was 28.4 ± 7.1 min for non-buffered articaine solution and 30.2 ± 8.5 min for buffered articaine solution, with no significant difference between the formulations (P = 0.231). Considering the pain of injection, regardless of the anesthetic success, the mean values of VAS were 11.3 ± 8.2 mm for the non-buffered articaine solution and 7.8 ±6.5 mm for the buffered articaine solution, which differed significantly (P = 0.001 < 0.05).

Conclusion

According to the present study, 4% articaine with epinephrine can benefit from buffering and provide better anesthetic behavior, with improved onset and less pain during injection.

Buffered articaine infiltration for primary maxillary molar extractions: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Dental pain management is an important aspect of patient management in pediatric dentistry. Articaine is considered the most successful anesthetic agent for infiltration anesthesia. Buffered articaine has been observed to have faster onset and longer duration of action with less pain on injection. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare pain on injection, onset of action, and pain during extraction using buffered (using Sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO₃)) and non-buffered 4% articaine (with 1:100000 adrenaline) infiltrations for primary maxillary molar extractions in 4-10-year-old children.

METHODS

Seventy children who required extraction of maxillary primary molars were enrolled in this triple-blind randomized study. Children undergoing extraction were randomly divided into two groups, with 35 in each group. The study group was the buffered articaine group; the control group was the non-buffered articaine group. Buccal and palatal infiltrations were administered with either buffered or non-buffered articaine. Subjective evaluation was done for pain on injection, pain during extraction using Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBFPR) and onset of anesthesia in seconds. Pain on injection, pain during extraction were objectively evaluated using Sound Eye Motor (SEM) scale and onset of anesthesia was also evaluated objectively by pricking with sharp dental probe.

RESULTS

The outcome was, significantly less pain on injection and significantly faster onset of anesthesia with significantly less pain during extraction for both subjective and objective evaluations in the buffered articaine group. Subgroup analysis was also performed and it showed variable results, with only significant difference for WBFPR scores in age subgroup 4-7 years for palatal infiltration.

CONCLUSION

Less pain on injection, faster onset of anesthesia, and less pain during extraction were observed when buffered articaine was used for maxillary primary molar extraction.