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

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.

Assessing the Efficacy of Cold Laser Therapy vs. Traditional Methods in Managing Post-Endodontic Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The background of the study highlighted the common occurrence of post-endodontic pain and the need for effective pain management strategies.

Materials and Methods

Fifty patients were randomly assigned to two groups: the cold laser therapy (CLT) group and the traditional methods group (TMG). The CLT group received laser treatment at the affected area immediately following endodontic treatment, whereas the TMG received standard pain management techniques such as analgesics. Pain levels were assessed using a visual analog scale at baseline and at 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours post treatment. Pain scores were analyzed using appropriate statistical methods, including analysis of variance, and P values were calculated to determine the significance of differences between groups.

Results

This study found significant differences in post-endodontic pain levels between CLT and standard procedures. At 6 hours post treatment, the CLT group had a mean pain score of 2.1 ± 0.8, whereas the TMG had a mean pain score of 3.8 ± 1.2 (P = 0.012). Pain levels in the CLT group decreased with time, with scores decreasing to 1.5 ± 0.6 at 12 hours, 1.2 ± 0.5 at 24 hours, and 0.9 ± 0.4 at 48 hours post treatment. In contrast, the TMG had greater pain scores at each time point: 3.2 ± 1.0, 2.9 ± 1.1, 2.5 ± 0.9, and 2.1 ± 0.8 at 12, 24, and 48 hours post treatment, respectively. At 12, 24, and 48 hours post treatment, P values of 0.021, 0.036, and 0.004, respectively, indicated significant differences.

Conclusion

In managing post-endodontic pain, CLT demonstrated superior efficacy compared to traditional methods.

Comparative Evaluation of Buccal Infiltration Technique with Buccal Plus Palatal Infiltration Technique Using 4% Articaine in Patients with Irreversible Pulpitis of Maxillary 1st Molars: A Prospective, Randomized, In-Vivo Study

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the buccal infiltration (BI) technique with the buccal plus palatal infiltration (BPI) technique using 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine.

Methods

A total of 50 adult patients received BI, and the other 50 adult patients received BPI with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. During RCT procedure, when the patient experienced pain, the treatment was stopped and the extent of the procedure was documented. When a patient reported "no pain" (0 mm) or "weak/mild pain" (0 <= 54 mm), the anesthesia was considered successful.

Results

Statistical analysis using unpaired t-test showed that the mean pain scores in both groups were comparable.

Conclusion

The pain scores in both groups were comparable, but BI is better than BPI as a painful and traumatic palatal injection was avoided.

Addition of 2 mg dexamethasone to improve the anesthetic efficacy of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine administered for inferior alveolar nerve block to patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in the mandibular molars: a randomized double-blind clinical trial

Introduction

This clinical trial aimed to evaluate the anesthetic effect of the addition of 2 mg (4 mg/ml) of dexamethasone to 2% lidocaine (plain or with 1:80,000 epinephrine). The solutions were injected for a primary inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) to provide mandibular anesthesia for the endodontic treatment of mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

Methods

In a double-blinded setup, 124 patients randomly received either of the following injections: 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine, 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine mixed with 2 mg dexamethasone, or plain 2% lidocaine mixed with 2 mg dexamethasone, which were injected as a primary IANB. Ten minutes after injection, patients with profound lip numbness underwent electric and thermal pulp sensibility tests. Patients who responded positively to the tests were categorized as "failed" anesthesia and received supplemental anesthesia. The remaining patients underwent endodontic treatment using a rubber dam. Anesthetic success was defined as "no pain or faint/weak/mild pain" during endodontic access preparation and instrumentation (HP visual analog scale score < 55 mm). The effect of the anesthetic solutions on the maximum change in heart rate was also evaluated. The Pearson chi-square test at 5% and 1% significance was used to analyze anesthetic success rates.

Results

The 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine, 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine mixed with 2 mg dexamethasone, and plain 2% lidocaine mixed with 2 mg dexamethasone groups had anesthetic success rates of 34%, 59%, and 29%, respectively. The addition of dexamethasone resulted in significantly better results (P < 0.001, χ² = 9.07, df = 2).

Conclusions

The addition of dexamethasone to 2% lidocaine with epinephrine, administered as an IANB, can improve the anesthetic success rates during the endodontic management of symptomatic mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis.

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.

Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine for buccal infiltration in adult patients with irreversible pulpitis of maxillary first molar: A prospective randomized study

Objective:

The purpose of this prospective, randomized study was to evaluate and compare the anesthetic efficacy of 0.8 ml of 4% articaine and 1.6 ml of 2% lidocaine administered through buccal infiltration (submucosal) only in adult male and female patients with irreversible pulpitis of maxillary 1^st molar.

Study Design:

Two hundred patients with irreversible pulpitis of the maxillary first molar were divided into four study groups and received only buccal infiltration of either 0.8 ml of 4% articaine or 1.6 ml of 2% lidocaine. Endodontic access was begun 7 min after the solution deposition. The success was defined as “no pain (0 mm)” or “weak/mild pain (>0 mm and ≤54 mm)” during access opening, and during the first file insertion till working length.

Results:

The compiled data of the number of failed cases were analyzed by two sample proportion test and of mean pain scores were analyzed by Student's unpaired t-test. P < 0.05 was taken as statistically significant. No significant difference was found in the number of failed cases on using 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine (P > 0.05). Moreover, no significant difference was found in the number of failed cases between the genders in Group I (4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine) and also in Group II (2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine). On comparing the mean pain scores of failed cases, it has been found that females experience more pain than males in Group I (not significant) and Group II (significant).

Conclusion:

The efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine has been found to be better than 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine, as only 0.8 ml of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was effectively used as compared to 1.6 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine. Furthermore, females experience more pain as compared to males.

Does the presence and amount of epinephrine in 2% lidocaine affect its anesthetic efficacy in the management of symptomatic maxillary molars with irreversible pulpitis?

Background

This was a randomized controlled clinical trial that aimed to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 2% lidocaine combined with different concentrations of epinephrine (plain, 1:200,000 and 1:80,000) during endodontic treatment of maxillary molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

Methods

The trial included 144 adult patients who were randomly allocated to three treatment groups. All patients received buccal-plus-palatal infiltration. After 10 min, pulp sensibility testing was performed using an electric pulp test (EPT). If a tooth responded positively, anesthesia was considered to have failed. In the case of a negative EPT response, endodontic access was initiated under rubber dam isolation. The success of anesthesia was defined as having a pain score less than 55 on the Heft Parker visual analog scale (HP VAS), which was categorized as ‘no pain’ or ‘faint/weak/mild’ pain on the HP VAS. Baseline pre-injection and post-injection maximum heart rates were recorded. The Pearson chi-square test was used to analyze the anesthetic success rates at 5% significance.

Results

Plain 2% lidocaine and 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 1:80,000 epinephrine had anesthetic success rates of 18.75%, 72.9%, and 82.3%, respectively. Statistical analysis indicated significant differences between the groups (P < 0.001, χ² = 47.5, df = 2). The maximum heart rate increase was seen with 2% lidocaine solution with epinephrine.

Conclusion

Adding epinephrine to 2% lidocaine significantly improves its anesthetic success rates during the root canal treatment of maxillary molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

Anesthetic efficacies of buccal with palatal injection versus buccal with intra-septal injection in permanent maxillary first molars of pediatric patients

The high success rate of dental treatment is dependent on the cooperation of pediatric patients during procedures. Dental treatment often causes pain, particularly in children. The factors in providing treatment to pediatric patients include the characteristics and location of the tooth, profoundness of the anesthesia including the type of local anesthetic, and cooperation of the patient. Previous studies have examined several techniques to successfully achieve profound pulpal anesthesia in maxillary permanent teeth. The dentist should select the injection technique to be used based on patient needs. In children, either buccal with palatal injections or buccal with intra-septal injections may be used to anesthetize the permanent maxillary first molar. Buccal with palatal injections are commonly used prior to routine maxillary dental procedures. Currently, there are only a few studies on the employment of buccal with intra-septal injections to anesthetize permanent maxillary first molars in pediatric patients. This review will focus on efficacy of buccal with palatal versus buccal with intra-septal pulpal anesthesia of the permanent maxillary first molars in pediatric patients and aim to determine which technique should be used during routine dental procedures.

Effect of precooling injection site and cold anesthetic administration on injection pain, onset, and anesthetic efficacy in maxillary molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This randomized controlled clinical trial assessed the analgesic and anesthetic effects of precooling the injection site and administration of refrigerated 2% lignocaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine (LE) in maxillary molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty patients diagnosed with SIP (preoperative pain score ≥ 85 mm) in maxillary first molars were randomly allocated to two groups. In group I (control), topical gel was applied for a minute followed by conventional LE infiltration, whereas in group II (experimental), topical ice application for 15 s and refrigerated (4-6 °C) LE administration was done prior to endodontic treatment. The primary outcome measure was anesthetic efficacy that was defined as none to weak pain (≤ 36 mm) as measured on Heft Parker visual analog scale (HP-VAS) following access cavity preparation. Pain on injection and onset constituted the secondary outcome measures. The pain on injection was measured using HP-VAS, whereas the onset of anesthesia was assessed using an electric pulp tester (EPT) which was applied on the experimental tooth every minute until no response was elicited. Mann-Whitney U test was performed to analyze the data (p < 0.01).

RESULTS

Experimental group reported a success rate of 86.6% when compared to control group (26.6%) and a statistically significant reduction on injection pain (20.0 mm vs 54.5 mm) (p < 0.01). The onset of anesthesia for experimental group was 2.4 min which was also significantly lower than control group (4.5 min) (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Cryotherapy can serve as an effective alternative to conventional anesthesia for achieving success, reduced pain, and faster onset during endodontic treatment of maxillary molars with SIP.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Precooling the injection site and cold LE administration can result in effective pulpal anesthesia during endodontic management of maxillary molars in SIP patients.

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.

Influence of Lignocaine Hydrochloride with Adrenaline on Free Active Chlorine Content of Sodium Hypochlorite Solution Admixed in Various Proportions

Objective:

Local anaesthetic solution that is commonly employed for supplemental intrapulpal injection (IPI) may routinely come in contact with subsequently used sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) during endodontic treatment of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis cases. This in vitro study investigated the available free active chlorine (FAC) content of 3% NaOCl after mixing with 2% lignocaine hydrochloride with adrenaline (LA) solution in three different proportions using iodometric titration analysis.

Methods:

Aliquots of 3% NaOCl (control) in different measures (30 mL, 27 mL, 21 mL and 15 mL) served as the effective concentrate of various proportions of NaOCl admixed with the test solutions, i.e., demineralised water (DM) and LA. The mixed aliquots containing NaOCl-DM and NaOCl-LA combination solutions admixed in various proportions (9:1, 7:3 and 1:1 w/v) respectively served as the experimental groups. Iodometric titration was performed to determine the FAC of each independent solution.The results were then evaluated using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc analysis to determine the differences between various groups and amongst the individual admixtures. The level of significance was set at P<0.05.

Results:

Inter-group comparisons revealed statistically significant differences (P<0.05) between all the test groups. An intra-group analysis revealed significant differences (P<0.05) in group 2, whereas no differences (P>0.05) were observed in group 3. Further, there was a dose dependent reduction in FAC content in both the experimental groups with lowest FAC values were observed in 1:1 solution admixtures followed by 7:3 and 9:1 proportions.

Conclusion:

There was a significant reduction in NaOCl FAC content when admixed with lignocaine HCl even in small proportions. Hence, adequate measures should be taken to remove the residual LA from the pulpal space, before the use of NaOCl after IPI administration.

Comparison of the efficacy of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 and 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 buccal infiltration for single maxillary molar extraction: a double-blind, randomised, clinical trial

The present study was designed to compare the efficiency of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 and 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 in providing adequate anaesthesia for maxillary molar extraction with buccal infiltration only. In this randomised, double-blind clinical trial, 139 patients who needed maxillary molars extracting were enrolled. Individuals were randomly divided into two groups of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 treated by buccal infiltration without palatal injection and 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 treated with the same method. Then, teeth were extracted and the pain assessed. During the extraction of teeth, 90.63% of patients in the lidocaine-treated group and 36% of patients in the articaine-treated group experienced pain (p<0.0001). In other words, the rates of successful anaesthesia with lidocaine and articaine buccal infiltration were 9.38% and 64%, respectively. Despite the better performance of articaine, it seems that some factors such as bone thickness and anatomical variations among individuals, besides the condition of the tooth, affects articaine's level of efficiency in each case.

An Evaluation of Ibuprofen Versus Ibuprofen/Acetaminophen for Postoperative Endodontic Pain in Patients With Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis and Symptomatic Apical Periodontitis

The purpose of this investigation was to compare ibuprofen versus an ibuprofen/acetaminophen combination for postoperative pain control in a patient model specific to teeth diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and symptomatic apical periodontitis. One hundred and two patients presenting with moderate to severe pain from a maxillary or mandibular posterior tooth diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and symptomatic apical periodontitis were included. Following local anesthetic administration, complete endodontic cleaning and shaping was performed. Patients were randomly assigned to receive identically appearing tablets of ibuprofen 200 mg or a combination of ibuprofen 200 mg/acetaminophen 216.7 mg with instructions to take 3 tablets every 6 hours as needed for pain. Patients were also given a prescription for an escape medication to take if the study medications did not adequately control their pain. A 4-day diary was used to record pain ratings and medication use. Moderate to severe pain was experienced by 59-61% of the patients on postoperative day 1 and 50-57% of the patients on day 2, with the pain ratings decreasing over the next 2 days. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in postoperative pain, percussion pain, or medication use. There was no difference between ibuprofen and the combination of ibuprofen/acetaminophen in the reduction of postoperative pain following endodontic debridement in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and symptomatic apical periodontitis.

Interventions for anesthetic success in symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Local anesthetics alone or in combination with adjuncts, such as oral medications, have routinely been used for pain control during endodontic treatment. The best clinical choice amongst the vast numbers of agents and techniques available for pain control for irreversible pulpitis is unclear. This network meta-analysis combined the available evidence on agents and techniques for pulpal anesthesia in the maxilla and mandible, in order to identify the best amongst these approaches statistically, as a basis for future clinical trials.

Methods

Randomized trials in MEDLINE, DARE, and COCHRANE databases were screened based on inclusion criteria and data were extracted. Heterogeneity was assessed and odds ratios were used to estimate effects. Inconsistencies between direct and indirect pooled estimates were evaluated by H-statistics. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation working group approach was used to assess evidence quality.

Results

Sixty-two studies (nine studies in the maxilla and 53 studies in the mandible) were included in the meta-analysis. Increased mandibular pulpal anesthesia success was observed on premedication with aceclofenac + paracetamol or supplemental 4% articaine buccal infiltration or ibuprofen+paracetamol premedication, all the above mentioned with 2% lignocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). No significant difference was noted for any of the agents investigated in terms of the success rate of maxillary pulpal anesthesia.

Conclusion

Direct and indirect comparisons indicated that some combinations of IANB with premedication and/or supplemental infiltration had a greater chance of producing successful mandibular pulpal anesthesia. No ideal technique for maxillary anesthesia emerged. Randomized clinical trials with increased sample size may be needed to provide more conclusive data. Our findings suggest that further high-quality studies are required in order to provide definitive direction to clinicians regarding the best agents and techniques to use for mandibular and maxillary anesthesia for irreversible pulpitis.

Anaesthesia Techniques for Maxillary Molars - A Questionnaire-Based Retrospective Field Survey of Dentist in Western India

INTRODUCTION

Clinicians use various anaesthesia techniques like Posterior Superior Alveolar (PSA) nerve block, buccal infiltration with or without supplemental anaesthesia like palatal and intraligamentary infiltrations for root canal treatment in maxillary molars. However there is no general consensus regarding which technique is enough for performing endodontic treatment in maxillary molars.

AIM

The aim of this questionnaire-based survey is to compare and evaluate the various techniques used to anaesthetize the maxillary molars and its effect on postoperative pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data were obtained from 290 dental practitioners using a specially prepared questionnaire survey conducted anonymously. The questionnaire contained questions covering data such as years in dentistry, acquired specialty, techniques used for anaesthetizing maxillary molars, success of anaesthesia, and postoperative pain, etc.

RESULTS

Buccal infilteration with supplemental anaesthesia in the form of palatal (82%) and intra-ligamentary infilteration (88%) show higher success rate compared to only buccal infilteration (69%). However, intra-ligamentary infilteration group showed highest rate (75%) of postoperative pain. General practitioners (62% of clinicians) prefer to give both buccal and palatal infilterations and specialists opt for only buccal infilteration (66-74% of specialists).

CONCLUSION

Only buccal infilteration is sufficient during root canal treatment of maxillary molars. Routine use of supplemental anaesthesia in the form of palatal and intra-ligamentary infilteration is not necessary unless patient experiences discomfort during endodontic treatment. However, intra-ligamentary infilteration may lead to postoperative discomfort in the form of pain.

Postoperative endodontic pain of three different instrumentation techniques in asymptomatic necrotic mandibular molars with periapical lesion: a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare postoperative pain of root canal treatment in patients with asymptomatic mandibular molar teeth with necrotic pulp and periapical lesion using three different instrumentation techniques: hand, multi-file rotary (ProTaper Universal), and reciprocating single-file (Wave-One) instrumentation techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety-six patients who fulfilled specific inclusion criteria were assigned to three groups according to the root canal instrumentation technique used: Hand (G1), ProTaper Universal (G2), and Wave-One (G3). One-visit root canal treatment was carried out, and the severity of the postoperative pain was assessed by the Heft-Parker visual analogue scale 6, 12, 18, 24, 48, and 72 h after treatment. Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis, χ ², Cochrane Q, one-way ANOVA, and Spearman's correlation analyses (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The patients in group 3 reported significantly lower postoperative pain levels at 6, 12, and 18 h compared with the patients in the two other groups (P < .05). In addition, the patients in group 2 reported significantly lower postoperative pain levels at 6 and 12 h compared with the patients in group 1 (P < .05). There were no significant differences in postoperative pain between the three groups at other time intervals (P > .05). The analgesic consumption was significantly higher in group 1 (P < .05), but no difference was seen between the two other groups (P > .05).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Postoperative pain was significantly lower in patients undergoing root canal instrumentation with the Wave-One file compared with the ProTaper Universal and hand files.

Efficacy of Articaine and Lidocaine for Buccal Infiltration of First Maxillary Molars with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: A Randomized Double-blinded Clinical Trial

Introduction:

The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of 2% lidocaine to 4% articaine in buccal infiltration of maxillary first molars with irreversible pulpitis. Moreover, the effect of root length on success of anesthesia irrespective of the type of anesthetic agent was assessed.

Methods and Materials:

Fifty patients suffering from painful maxillary first molars with irreversible pulpitis received an infiltration injection of either 4% articaine with 1:100000 epinephrine or 2% lidocaine with 1:80000 epinephrine. Each patient recorded their pain score in response to a cold test on a Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (VAS) before commencing the treatment, 5 min following injection, during access preparation, after pulp exposure and during root canal instrumentation. No or mild pain at any stage was considered a success. Data were analyzed using the multivariate logistic regression analysis, chi-square and t tests.

Results:

Finally, 47 out of 50 patients were eligible to be included in this study. The anesthetic success rates in the lidocaine and articaine groups were 56.52% and 66.67%, respectively and the difference was not significant (P=0.474). Irrespective of the anesthetic agent, the length of the palatal root (Odds Ratio=0.24, P=0.007) had an adverse effect on anesthetic success. There was an association between longer palatal root length and anesthetic failure.

Conclusion:

No significant difference was found between 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine in terms of anesthetic success in maxillary first molars with irreversible pulpitis. The length of the palatal root had a significant negative influence on anesthetic success.

Maxillary posterior teeth removal without palatal injection -truth or myth: a dilemma for oral surgeons

BACKGROUND

Pain control is one of the most important factors for successful treatment. Each new measure to control pain has been looked as miraculous act at the initial stages. The improvements in agents and techniques for local anaesthesia are probably the most important advances in dental science to have occurred in the past years.

AIM

To evaluate 4% articaine hydrochloride against 2% lignocaine hydrochloride anaesthesia in providing adequate palatal anaesthesia in maxillary posterior regions, without the need for a palatal block.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

Healthy patients above 15 y of age and requiring bilateral extraction of their maxillary posterior teeth were included in this crossover study. The exclusion criteria included medical history of cardiovascular and kidney diseases, gastrointestinal bleeding or ulceration, allergic reactions to local anaesthetic, pregnancy or current lactation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty patients, requiring bilateral extraction of their teeth due to various reasons were enrolled for this study. Each patient received both lignocaine and articaine anaesthetic in equivalent dose at two different appointments. Maxillary infiltration technique was used for extraction of maxillary posterior teeth at both the appointments. A 170-mm Heft Parker visual analogue scale was used to assess the pain on the palatal mucosa after buccal infiltration of either anaesthetic agent. Blood pressure, Pulse rate and electrocardiographic monitoring were done during the procedure. Adverse effects during the study period were also monitored.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Data was analysed by Z-test and student's t-test.

RESULTS

Pain scores on probing palatal mucosa after buccal infiltration of the anaesthetic were more for lignocaine as compare to articaine and it was statistically significant (p <.001). However, for hemodynamic parameters and electrocardiographic monitoring, there was no statistically significant difference in blood pressure, pulse rate and electrocardiograph before and after the completion of extraction (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Four percent articaine offers better clinical performance than 2% Lignocaine, particularly in terms of providing adequate palatal anaesthesia with only buccal infiltration.

A comparison of two anesthesia methods for the surgical removal of maxillary third molars: PSA nerve block technique vs. local infiltration technique

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of PSA block injection with infiltration technique regarding local anesthesia for surgical extraction of upper third molar.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective, intra individual, single-blind randomized controlled trial was designed to study the severity of pain during injection and after surgical extraction of the bilaterally and symmetrically similar upper third molar in a total of 53 patients, in addition to evaluating the need to repeat the injection and requirement of post operative anti-inflammatory tablets.

RESULT

Although the average pain score for all studied times in PSA side was lower than the average pain score in infiltration technique, repeated statistical measures demonstrated that no significant pain reduction occurred in the two techniques.

CONCLUSION

The both tested methods have the same statistic equivalence for the surgical extraction of maxillary third molars. Key words:Surgical extraction, maxillary third molars, PSA block, infiltration.

An early and late cytotoxicity evaluation of lidocaine on human oral mucosa fibroblasts

Local anesthetic drugs are extensively used in dentistry. However, the cytotoxic effects of these pharmaceutical compounds remain unclear. In this work, we have evaluated the cell viability and cell function of human oral mucosa fibroblasts exposed to different concentrations of lidocaine for increasing incubation times, using a global screening methods including structural, metabolic and microanalytical analyses. Our results demonstrate that lidocaine is able to alter cell viability and function even at low concentrations and times, although the effect of lidocaine concentration was more important than the incubation time. First, the structural analysis methods revealed that ≥5% concentrations of lidocaine are able to significantly reduce cell viability. Then, the metabolic 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) and water-soluble tetrazolium salt (WST-1) assays suggest that concentrations starting from 1% were able to significantly hinder cell physiology. Finally, electron-probe X-ray microanalysis confirmed the deleterious effects of lidocaine and allowed us to demonstrate that these effects are associated to an apoptosis process of cell death. Therefore, care should be taken when lidocaine is clinically used, and the lowest efficient concentrations should always be used. Furthermore, these results suggest that the comprehensive evaluation method used in this work is accurate and efficient for screening of local anesthetics.

Effect of occlusal reduction on postoperative pain in teeth with irreversible pulpitis and mild tenderness to percussion

INTRODUCTION

Pain management after root canal treatment is a very important issue in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of occlusal reduction on postoperative pain in teeth with irreversible pulpitis and tenderness to percussion.

METHODS

Fifty-four posterior vital teeth with sensitivity to percussion requiring endodontic treatment were included in this study. After administration of local anesthesia, the root canals were instrumented, and an intracanal calcium hydroxide dressing was placed. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups of 27 each. In 1 group the occlusal surface was reduced (OR group), whereas in the other group the occlusal surface was not modified (no occlusal reduction, NOR group). Each patient was asked to record their postoperative pain on a visual analogue scale with 4 categories at 6 hours, 12 hours, 18 hours, 1 day, and then daily for 6 days after this treatment. Data were analyzed by t test, Cochran Q, χ(2), and Mann-Whitney tests.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients returned the visual analogue scale forms. There was no significant difference in postoperative pain between the 2 groups (P > .05) after root canal preparation and calcium hydroxide dressing.

CONCLUSIONS

Occlusal surface reduction did not provide any further reduction in postoperative pain for teeth with irreversible pulpitis and mild tenderness to percussion compared with no occlusal reduction.

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 comparison of equivalent doses of lidocaine and articaine in maxillary posterior tooth extractions: case series

Objectives

Local anaesthesia is the standard of care during dental extractions. With the advent of newer local anesthetic agents, it is often difficult for the clinician to decide which agent would be most efficacious in a given clinical scenario. This study assessed the efficacy of equal-milligram doses of lidocaine and articaine in achieving surgical anaesthesia of maxillary posterior teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis.

Material and Methods

This case-series evaluated a total of 41 patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis in a maxillary posterior tooth. Patients randomly received an infiltration of either 3.6 mL (72 mg) 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 1.8 mL (72 mg) 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in the buccal fold and palatal soft tissue adjacent to the tooth. After 10 minutes, initial anaesthesia of the tooth was assessed by introducing a sterile 27-gauge needle into the gingival tissue adjacent to the tooth, followed by relief of the gingival cuff. Successful treatment was considered to have occurred when the tooth was extracted with no reported pain. Data was analyzed with the Fisher's exact test, unpaired t-test and normality test.

Results

Twenty-one patients received lidocaine and 20 received articaine. Forty of the 41 patients achieved initial anaesthesia 10 minutes after injection: 21 after lidocaine and 19 after articaine (P = 0.488). Pain-free extraction was accomplished in 33 patients: 19 after lidocaine and 14 after articaine buccal and palatal infiltrations (P = 0.226).

Conclusions

There was no significant difference in efficacy between equivalent doses of lidocaine and articaine in the anaesthesia of maxillary posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis.