A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of the anesthetic efficacy of two percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 and 1:50,000 epinephrine and three percent mepivacaine in the intraoral, infraorbital nerve block

Buccal versus buccal palatal infiltration for pulpal anesthesia using 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine: A randomized controlled trial

Background

The inability in achieving complete pulpal anesthesia with standard buccal infiltration especially in cases with SIP used for maxillary teeth. The study aimed to compare the anesthetic efficacy of buccal and buccal plus palatal infiltration technique using 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine in permanent maxillary first molars with the diagnosis of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP).

Material and method

One hundred and twenty-three patients with clinical diagnosis of SIP, aged 18-50 years were randomly allocated to three treatment groups (N = 41). Group 1(BIL): Buccal infiltration technique using 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline. Group 2(BPIL): combination of buccal plus palatal infiltration using 2% Lidocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline. Group 3(BIA): Buccal infiltration using 4% articaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline. Pain intensity of patients were recorded before and after the administration of local anesthesia during endodontic procedure that is during caries removal, access preparation and pulp removal using Heft-Parker Visual Analog Scale (HP-VAS). Success was defined by "no pain (0 mm)" or "mild pain (0-54 mm)" during endodontic procedure. The anesthetic efficacy rates were analyzed using chi-square tests, age differences using one-way ANOVA.

Results

The final analysis included total of 117 patients. Higher success was observed in group II (85%) in comparison to group I (69%) and group III (74%), but the difference was statistically nonsignificant (p > 0.05). Our results demonstrated a nonsignificant difference between genders in all three groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

The use of buccal plus palatal infiltration and 4% articaine can provide effective anesthesia as standard buccal infiltration and 2% lidocaine for patients with SIP in maxillary first molars.

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.

Local anesthesia in oral and maxillofacial surgery: A review of current opinion

Local anesthesia (LA) is the most important pain management process in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Safe and effective LA not only enable patients to obtain high-quality treatment, but also relieve the anxiety of patients when they come to the clinic. The choices of local anesthetic and injection methods determine the success of LA to a great extent. At present, in most countries or regions, common local anesthetics used in oral and maxillofacial surgery belong to amides and they are injected into patients' body mainly through block or infiltration anesthesia. In addition, the operators' technique level, patient's subjective psychology and anatomical variation of maxillofacial structure also have a strong influence on LA in dental clinic. Due to the existence of above factors, the worldwide success rates of LA in oral and maxillofacial surgery is very different. There are no specific LA methods that ensure 100% successful LA rates. Fortunately, the development of new local anesthetic and injection technology are providing us with new ideas to solve this problem. This review mainly report the new research progress on LA in oral and maxillofacial surgery in recent decades and help clinicians with dental LA operation.

Efficacy of dental local anesthetics: A review

The objective of this review was to investigate the efficacy of dental local anesthetics, as it is well known among clinicians that local anesthesia may be challenging in some circumstances. Therefore, the focus of this review was on the efficacy of the products used in dental local anesthesia.

In a Pubmed database literature search conducted, a total of 8646 articles were found to be related to dental local anesthetics. After having applied the inclusion criteria (human research, performed in the last 10 years, written in English language, and focus on dental local anesthetics) and having assessed the quality of the papers, 30 were deemed eligible for inclusion in this review.

The conclusion of this review is that none of the dental local anesthetic amides provide 100% anesthesia. The problem appears to be more pronounced when mandibular teeth are attempted to be anaesthetized and especially if there is irreversible pulpitis involved. The authors conclude that this finding suggest exploration of more efficient techniques to administer dental local anesthesia, especially in the mandible, to establish a 100% efficacy, is needed.

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.

Efficacy and safety of mepivacaine compared with lidocaine in local anaesthesia in dentistry: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

The objective of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of mepivacaine compared with lidocaine used in local anaesthesia in dentistry. Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched electronically. Relevant journals and references of studies included were hand-searched for randomised controlled trials comparing mepivacaine with lidocaine in terms of efficacy and safety. Twenty-eight studies were included, of which 15 had low risk of bias and 13 had moderate risk of bias. In comparison with 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline, 3% mepivacaine showed a lower success rate (P = 0.05), a shorter onset time of pulpal anaesthesia (P = 0.0005), inferior pain control during injection phase and superior inhibition of heart rate increase (P < 0.0001). In contrast, 2% mepivacaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline gave a higher success rate (P < 0.00001), a similar onset time of pulpal anaesthesia (P = 0.34) and superior pain control during injection phase (P < 0.0001); 2% mepivacaine with 1:20,000 levonordefrin had the same success rate (P = 0.69) and similar onset time of pulpal anaesthesia (P = 0.90). In addition, 3% mepivacaine had shorter onset time (P = 0.004), same level of success rate (P = 0.28) and similar pain control during injection and postinjection compared with 2% lidocaine with 1:50,000 adrenaline. Given the efficacy and safety of the two solutions, 2% mepivacaine with vasoconstrictors is better than 2% lidocaine with vasoconstrictors in dental treatment. Meanwhile, 3% plain mepivacaine is better for patients with cardiac diseases.

Anterior and middle superior alveolar nerve block for anesthesia of maxillary teeth using conventional syringe

Background:

Dental procedures in the maxilla typically require multiple injections and may inadvertently anesthetize facial structures and affect the smile line. To minimize these inconveniences and reduce the number of total injections, a relatively new injection technique has been proposed for maxillary procedures, the anterior and middle superior alveolar (AMSA) nerve block, which achieves pulpal anesthesia from the central incisor to second premolar through palatal approach with a single injection. The purpose of this article is to provide background information on the anterior and middle superior alveolar nerve block and demonstrate its success rates of pulpal anesthesia using the conventional syringe.

Materials and Methods:

Thirty Caucasian patients (16 men and 14 women) with an average age of 22 years-old, belonging to the School of Dentistry of Los Andes University, were selected. All the patients received an AMSA nerve block on one side of the maxilla using the conventional syringe, 1 ml of lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:100.000 was injected to all the patients.

Results:

The AMSA nerve block obtained a 66% anesthetic success in the second premolar, 40% in the first premolar, 60% in the canine, 23.3% in the lateral incisor, and 16.7% in the central incisor.

Conclusions:

Because of the unpredictable anesthetic success of the experimental teeth and variable anesthesia duration, the technique is disadvantageous for clinical application as the first choice, counting with other techniques that have greater efficacy in the maxilla. Although, anesthetizing the teeth without numbing the facial muscles may be useful in restorative dentistry.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of the injection pain and anesthetic onset of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine buffered with 5% and 10% sodium bicarbonate in maxillary infiltrations

INTRODUCTION

Local anesthetics can be buffered to a physiological pH before injection to decrease the time of onset and reduce injection pain.

METHODS

Thirty subjects with intact maxillary canines were included. The subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, 1 of the 3 maxillary infiltration injections of 1.8 mL 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine buffered at 5% and 10% with sodium bicarbonate by volume at 3 separate appointments. Pain on needle penetration and deposition of anesthetic solution was recorded by using a Heft-Parker visual analogue scale. Anesthetic onset was determined by 2 consecutive negative responses to electronic pulp test.

RESULTS

The mean anesthetic onset for nonbuffered anesthetics was 119 seconds, 116 seconds for the 5% buffered solutions, and 121 seconds for the 10% buffered solutions. There was no significant difference between the 3 groups. There was also no significant difference in pain on needle penetration or anesthetic deposition between the 3 anesthetic solutions tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Two percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine buffered with 5% or 10% sodium bicarbonate did not differ from nonbuffered solutions in anesthetic onset or injection pain in maxillary infiltrations of canines with healthy pulps.

Effect of topical anesthesia on pain during infiltration injection and success of anesthesia for maxillary central incisors

INTRODUCTION

This study was performed to investigate the effect of topical anesthesia on pain during needle penetration and infiltration injection as well as the effect of pain during injection on success rate of anesthesia in maxillary central incisors.

METHODS

In a crossover double-blind study, 25 volunteers randomly received either topical anesthesia or placebo before infiltration injection with prilocaine for their maxillary central incisors in 2 separate appointments. The pain after needle penetration and during injection was separately recorded. An electric pulp tester was used to evaluate the success of the anesthetic injection. Data were analyzed by McNemar, Wilcoxon, and χ(2) tests.

RESULTS

Overall for 50 injections, 72% of the teeth had successful anesthesia. No significant difference was found between placebo and topical anesthetic groups for the pain of needle penetration as well as pain during injection (P > .05). The volunteers who reported moderate-to-severe pain during injection showed no significant difference in the success rate of anesthesia compared with those with no or mild pain during injections (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of topical anesthesia had no significant effect on pain during either needle penetration or injection. Pain during injection had no significant effect on the success of anesthesia.

A prospective, randomized, single-blind comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of posterior superior alveolar nerve blocks, buccal infiltrations, and buccal plus palatal infiltrations in patients with irreversible pulpitis

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the anesthetic efficacy of posterior superior alveolar (PSA) nerve blocks, buccal infiltrations, and buccal plus palatal infiltrations with 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine in maxillary first molars with irreversible pulpitis.

METHODS

Ninety-four adult patients participated in this prospective, randomized, single-blinded study. The patients were divided into 3 treatment groups on a random basis. Twenty-eight patients received a PSA nerve block, 33 patients received buccal infiltrations, and 33 patients received buccal plus palatal infiltrations with 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine. Endodontic access preparation was initiated 15 minutes after injection. Pain during treatment was recorded using a Heft-Parker visual analog scale. Success was recorded as "none" or "mild" pain.

RESULTS

Statistical analysis using nonparametric chi-square tests revealed that there was no statistical difference between the anesthetic success of PSA nerve blocks (64%), buccal infiltrations (54%), and buccal plus palatal infiltrations (70%).

CONCLUSIONS

None of the tested methods gave 100% anesthetic success rates in maxillary first molars with irreversible pulpitis.

Targeting of sodium channel blockers into nociceptors to produce long-duration analgesia: a systematic study and review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We have developed a strategy to target the permanently charged lidocaine derivative lidocaine N-ethyl bromide (QX-314) selectively into nociceptive sensory neurons through the large-pore transient receptor potential cation channel subfamily V (TRPV1) noxious heat detector channel. This involves co-administration of QX-314 and a TRPV1 agonist to produce a long-lasting local analgesia. For potential clinical use we propose using lidocaine as the TRPV1 agonist, because it activates TRPV1 at clinical doses.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

We conducted experiments in rats to determine optimal concentrations and ratios of lidocaine and QX-314 that produce the greatest degree and duration of pain-selective block when administered nearby the sciatic nerve: reduction in the response to noxious mechanical (pinch) and to radiant heat stimuli, with minimal disruption in motor function (grip strength).

KEY RESULTS

A combination of 0.5% QX-314 and 2% lidocaine produced 1 h of non-selective sensory and motor block followed by >9 h of pain-selective block, where grip strength was unimpaired. QX-314 at this concentration had no effect by itself, while 2% lidocaine by itself produced 1 h of non-selective block. The combination of 0.5% QX-314 and 2% lidocaine was the best of the many tested, in terms of the duration and selectivity of local analgesia.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Targeting charged sodium channel blockers into specific sets of axons via activation of differentially expressed large-pore channels provides an opportunity to produce prolonged local analgesia, and represents an example of how exploiting ion channels as a drug delivery port can be used to increase the specificity and efficacy of therapeutics.

Glucose levels and hemodynamic changes in patients submitted to routine dental treatment with and without local anesthesia

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to (1) observe the extent to which hemodynamic and glucose measurements change in patients submitted to a dental procedure with and without a local anesthetic and a vasoconstrictor (LAVA; 2% mepivacaine with adrenaline 1100,000) and (2) correlate those parameters with the patients' anxiety levels.

METHOD

This was an unblinded, random, prospective, and observational study with paired groups. Patients were evaluated during two different consultations during which they either did or did not receive a local anesthetic/vasoconstrictor.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients ranging in age from 18 to 45 years (mean 30.4 ± 5.5 years) were evaluated. Hemodynamic parameters, including systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, and glucose levels, did not change significantly in healthy patients, regardless of whether a LAVA was administered during the dental treatment.

CONCLUSION

The patients' anxiety statuses neither varied significantly nor showed any correlation with the studied hemodynamic parameters and glucose levels, regardless of whether local anesthetics were used.