Infiltrative local anesthesia with articaine is equally as effective as inferior alveolar nerve block with lidocaine for the removal of erupted molars

Can Remimazolam Be a New Sedative Option for Outpatients Undergoing Ambulatory Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery?

PURPOSE

Midazolam is a classic sedative drug. The sedative effect of remimazolam has not been demonstrated in ambulatory oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS). This study aimed to measure whether remimazolam can achieve the same sedation effects compared with midazolam, but with a faster recovery and fewer adverse reactions in outpatients undergoing ambulatory OMS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center study of 40 patients who underwent ambulatory OMS at Peking University Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China, between April 2021 and June 2021. The patients were randomly divided into a midazolam group (Group M) and a remimazolam group (Group R). The success rate of sedation, which was defined as completion of the operation with no rescue sedative medication, was the primary outcome. In this study, bispectral index and modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation value, intraoperative adverse events, time to discharge, and the number of additional doses of sedative were compared. Descriptive, comparative analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Forty patients were eligible for this study, and the final sample size was 40 (including 25 males, average age was 29). The success rate of sedation in Group R was statistically significantly higher than that in Group M (Group R vs Group M: 95% [19/20] vs 70% [14/20], P = .037, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.681 to 0.913). The median number of additional doses of the medications per 5 minutes in Group R was lower than that in Group M (0.51 [0.19, 0.71] vs 0.82 [0.51, 1.25], P = .006, 95% CI: 0.013 to 0.583). Group R showed a higher bispectral index number (93.9 ± 4.6 vs 86.6 ± 7.2, P = .001, 95% CI: 3.451 to 11.149) at the end of the surgery and a higher modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation score (4.70 ± 0.47 vs 4.05 ± 0.68, P = .001, 95% CI: 0.273 to 1.027) after 5 minutes at the recovery room compared with Group M.

CONCLUSIONS

The success rate of remimazolam is higher than that of midazolam. The use of remimazolam is effective for sedation of patients undergoing ambulatory OMS.

Can 4% Articaine Buccal Infiltration Replace Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block (IANB) with 2% Xylocaine for Pulp Therapy in Primary Mandibular Molars? A Systematic Review

Aim and objective

This systematic review aims to compare the efficacy of 4% articaine buccal supraperiosteal/infiltration to that of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 2% xylocaine in providing pulpal anesthesia for carrying out pulp therapy of deciduous mandibular molars in children.

Materials and methods

PubMed, Cochrane Registry, and Ovid SP were searched in the timeframe between years 1991 and 2020 with appropriate MeSH terms. Full texts were selected only after a preliminary screening of relevant titles and abstracts.

Results

Five studies were involved for the final qualitative analysis. The parameter sought for was "Pain during pulp therapy after injection with buccal supraperiosteal/infiltration (4% articaine) or IANB (2% lignocaine) in primary mandibular molars. Three studies evaluated objective pain (operator reported) during pulp therapy, reported significantly lower pain scores with articaine buccal infiltration (BI). Among the two studies that evaluated subjective pain, one study reported a significantly lower pain score with the articaine BI group. The other study reported no difference statistically between both groups.

Conclusion

Under the bounds of this systematic review, BI with 4% articaine might be equivalent to IANB with 2% lignocaine for providing pulpal anesthesia required for pulp therapy procedures in primary mandibular molars; however, the quality of evidence is low, more number of well-controlled studies with adequate sized sample should be conducted out to verify the same.

How to cite this article

Tirupathi SP, Rajasekhar S, Ganesh M, et al. Can 4% Articaine Buccal Infiltration Replace Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block (IANB) with 2% Xylocaine for Pulp Therapy in Primary Mandibular Molars? A Systematic Review. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(3):420-425.

Is Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Needed to Perform Implant Surgery in the Posterior Mandible? A Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

There is no agreement in the literature on whether inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) or infiltration (INF) is the anesthetic technique of choice for placing implants in the posterior mandible. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of the 2 techniques using articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The trial was a comparison between 2 parallel groups of patients, who received implants distal to the mental foramen, either with IANB or INF. The anesthetic technique was the predictor variable. The primary outcome was patients' perceived pain by a numerical rating scale (NRS) in incision, osteotomy and suture. The secondary outcome, patients' satisfaction, was equally recorded 12 hours after surgery. The dataset were first analyzed by descriptive statistics. Then, Mann-Whitney test, Spearman's coefficient and regression models were used. This trial followed the recommendations of the Consort Statement for reporting RCTs.

RESULTS

Ninety-six patients (41 men, 55 women, mean age 55.76 years) were randomly assigned to either group, IANB or INF, of 48 patients each. Only 20% of patients reported pain values >0 (range 0-4 of 10). Medians were: 0 (0-0) for both groups (P = .956, .175 and .908, incision, osteotomy and suture, respectively). Mean satisfaction was high in both groups, 9.0 ± 1.0, median 10; and 8.8 ± 1.7, median 9, for IANB and INF (P = .695). Hence, the anesthetic technique did not generate statistically significant differences. Five potential influencing variables that were measured did not significantly affect pain levels or patient satisfaction in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the results, an IANB might not be necessary for standard implant surgery in the posterior mandible, and infiltration of articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 appears to be sufficient. Further research is needed to check if these results are extensible to other anesthetic drugs.

[Evaluation of the effectiveness of the compression method for infiltration anesthesia of the mandibular molars]

AIM

To study the depth of analgesia and the electrical excitability dynamics of the pulp of the tooth under local anesthesia without and with compression on the depot of local anesthetics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

87 men and 93 women took part in the study, the average age of men was 36.8±5.02 and the average age of women was 30.43±2.14. According to the indications, local anesthesia of infiltration type with and without compression at the depot of local anesthetics was performed. The injection was carried out with a solution of 4% articaine with epinephrine1:100000 or 1:200000. Patients were divided into 2 groups depending on the used concentration of the vasoconstrictor with 4% articaine. The target area thermometry and electroodontometry (EOD) of the first mandibular molar were performed. The criterion for the onset of pulp analgesia was the value from 92 to 100 mA.

RESULTS

Dynamics of change in pulp electrical excitability of the first molar with the use of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:200000 without a compress showed that in the latter case the reduction of pulp electrical excitability to 96.6 µA, which is optimal for painless treatment, was developed by the 5th minute of the study and remained at the limit of 92.2-92.1 µA for 20 minutes. When using 4% articaine 1:100 000 it was noted that also the compression technique allowed to reach the necessary reduction of EOD indices to 93.5 µA by the 5th minute of the study, and to 97.2 µA by the 10th minute. Increased hypothermia in the injection depot area was noted thermographically, especially when high concentrations of epinephrine were used.

CONCLUSION

Our own studies reflect the dynamics of change in the electrical excitability of the pulp of the first molar with the use of 4% articaine by compression method more intensively reduces the electrical reacrivity of the dental pulp depending on the concentration of the epinephrine: with the use of 1:100000, the advantage of the pressure technique is 19.3% and 1:200000 - 21.8%.

Is the only buccal infiltration anesthesia enough for extraction of mandibular anterior incisors and premolar teeth? A split-mouth randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The issue of needing additional lingual injection in extractions of mandibular premolar and incisors is still not clarified. The aim of this study is to investigate whether it is necessary to perform lingual injection in addition to buccal infiltration anesthesia in mandibular incisors and premolar teeth extractions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-six patients who admitted to our clinic for the removal of bilateral mandibular anterior teeth were included in the present study. Patients were divided into two groups. The experimental group received only 1.5 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine by injection into the buccal vestibule of the tooth. The control group received 1.5 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine by buccal injection into the buccal side and 0.3 ml same lidocaine solution injected into the lingual side of the tooth. After 5 min, tooth was extracted and each patient was asked to record the intensity of injection and extraction pain by 0-100 mm and a 10-point Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and six-pointed Face Pain Scale (FPS).

RESULTS

The injection pain scores were significantly higher in terms of the VAS 0-10 point and 0-100 mm and FPS in the control group to which additional lingual injections were applied than the experimental group (p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were found in all three scales between the groups in terms of extraction pain (p > 0.05). The mean extraction pain scores were lower in the experimental group according to the three scales. No additional anesthetic injection and post-operative complications were observed in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The extraction of mandibular incisors and premolar teeth can only be done with only the buccal infiltration.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth, it can be performed with less anesthetic amount without the need for an additional lingual injection.

Can single buccal infiltration with 4% articaine induce sufficient analgesia for the extraction of primary molars in children: a systematic literature review

This systematic review aims to determine if a single buccal infiltration (without palatal infiltration in the maxilla and Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in the mandible) with 4% articaine can induce adequate analgesia for the extraction of primary molars (Maxillary and Mandibular) in children. PubMed, Ovid SP, and Embase were searched for studies published between January 1990 and March 2020 with the relevant MeSH terms. Titles and abstracts were screened preliminarily, followed by the full-texts of the included studies. Five articles were included for this systematic review. The outcome investigated was “Procedural pain during the extraction of primary molars after injection with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine in comparison to single buccal infiltration, double infiltration (buccal and palatal/lingual), and inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% lignocaine.” Of the five studies that evaluated subjective pain during extraction, two reported no significant difference between the articaine and lignocaine groups, and the remaining three reported lower subjective pain during extraction in the articaine group. Only two studies evaluated objective pain scores during extraction, and both studies reported lower pain scores in the articaine group. There is insufficient evidence to justify the statement that a single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine alone is sufficient for the extraction of primary molars. Further evidence is required to justify the claim that palatal infiltrations and IANB can be replaced with the use of 4% articaine single buccal infiltration for the extraction of primary molars in children.

Intraligamentary Local Anaesthesia for Posterior Mandibular Extractions

This article reviews research and author experience behind Intraligamentary Local Anaesthesia (ILA) and Infiltration Local Anaesthesia (IFA) with Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block (IANB). In particular, the use of ILA with 4% articaine is discussed as an effective anaesthetic technique to replace both IANB and IFA for the purpose of tooth extraction in the posterior mandible. ILA also avoids the possible complications associated with IANB. Other advantages and some shortfalls of the ILA technique are described in relation to primary dental care. The technique for achieving ILA is described.

CPD/Clinical Relevance: The ILA technique with articaine is a simple, swift and effective alternative to IANB and IFA for extraction of posterior teeth in the mandible in primary dental care. ILA has fewer potential debilitating complications than IANB and is likely to be more effective than IFA.

Efficacy of articaine vs lignocaine in maxillary and mandibular infiltration and block anesthesia in the dental treatments of adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to address the following Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question: Is the efficacy of articaine better than lignocaine in adults requiring dental treatment? Four percent articaine was compared with 2% lignocaine for maxillary and mandibular infiltrations and block anesthesia, and with the principal outcome measures of anesthetic success. Using RevMan software, the weighted anesthesia success rates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and compared using a random-effects model. For combined studies, articaine was more likely to achieve successful anesthesia than lignocaine (N = 18, odds ratio [OR]: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.45-2.56, P < 0.00001, I²  = 32%). Maxillary and mandibular infiltration studies showed obvious superiority of articaine to lignocaine (N = 8, OR: 2.50, 95% CI: 1.51-4.15, P = 0.0004, I²  = 41%). Maxillary infiltration subgroup analysis showed no significant difference between articaine and lignocaine (N = 5, OR: 1.69, 95% CI: 0.88-3.23, P = 0.11, I²  = 19%). For combined mandibular anesthesia studies, articaine was superior to lignocaine (N = 14, OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.45-2.72, P < 0.0001, I²  = 32%), with further subgroup analysis showing significant differences in both mandibular block anesthesia (N = 11, OR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.19-2.03, P = 0.001), I²  = 0%) and mandibular infiltration (N = 3, OR: 3.87, 95% CI: 2.62-5.72, P < 0.00001, I²  = 0%), indicating that articaine is more effective than lignocaine in providing anesthetic success in routine dental procedures.

Anesthetic efficacy of an inferior alveolar nerve block in soft tissue and correlation between soft tissue and pulpal anesthesia

OBJECTIVES

This study was aimed at evaluating the anesthetic success rates in various regions of soft tissue after inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block and comparing the success rates of soft tissue anesthesia with those of pulpal anesthesia to find correlations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-nine dental students received an IAN block injection. A total of four test sites were used for soft tissue anesthesia using a pressure algometer (PA): the corner of the lower lip vermilion border (LL); the buccal-attached gingiva of the lateral incisor (BGI), the molar (BGM), and the lingual gingiva (LG). The lateral incisor (LI) and the first molar (M1) were evaluated for pulpal anesthesia using an electric pulp tester. To evaluate whether soft tissue anesthesia can be an indicator of pulpal anesthesia, the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated.

RESULTS

The highest success rate for soft tissue anesthesia was seen on the LG (93.9%), followed by LL (79.6%), BGI (53.1%), and BGM (14.3%). The PPVs of LL for the M1 and Ll were 74.4 and 59.0%. The NPVs for the M1 and LI were much higher in the LL (90.0 and 100%, respectively) than in the BGI (56.5 and 69.6%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The highest success rate was found in the LG. Lip numbness was not an indicator of pulpal anesthesia of M1 and LI. However, if the LL was not anesthetized, the probabilities of failed pulpal anesthesia were very high in the LI and M1.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The clinicians need to consider not doing an additional lingual nerve block after IAN block.