Anesthetic Comparisons of 4% Concentrations of Articaine, Lidocaine, and Prilocaine as Primary Buccal Infiltrations of the Mandibular First Molar: A Prospective Randomized, Double-blind Study

Efficacy of the TuttleNumbNow Intraosseous Method for Pulpal Anesthesia in the Mandibular First Molar: A Prospective, Randomized, Crossover Study

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies on intraosseous (IO) anesthesia as a primary injection have shown high success rates. The TuttleNumbNow (TNN; Orem, UT) is a new primary IO injection technique that has not been scientifically evaluated. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective randomized, crossover study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of the TNN IO technique using the Septoject Evolution needle (Septodont, Saint-Maur-des-Fosses, France) compared with buccal infiltration for pulpal anesthesia in mandibular first molars.

METHODS

One hundred four healthy subjects were randomly assigned to 2 treatment groups separated by at least 2 weeks. One set of injections consisted of buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar using 1.8 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine followed by a mock TNN injection distal to the mandibular first molar. The other set of injections was a mock buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar followed by a TNN injection of 1.8 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine distal to the mandibular first molar. Statistical analyses were performed.

RESULTS

For the mandibular first molar, which had a 42% anesthetic success rate (highest 80 reading) with buccal infiltration compared with 49% with the TNN, no statistically significant difference in success was observed (P = .2115).

CONCLUSIONS

The TNN technique has been advocated as an IO injection. However, the inability to deliver anesthetic solution to the cancellous bone resulted in an anesthetic success rate of 49%. The success was statistically similar to a buccal infiltration (42%) and would not provide adequate pulpal anesthesia as a primary injection.

Primary and supplementary anesthetic efficacy of a modified two-step buccal infiltration of 4% articaine in mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate a modified two-step buccal infiltration (MBI) of 1.7 mL 4% articaine as primary or supplemental anesthesia in mandibular first and second molars diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and eight patients with SIP were randomly assigned to one of three groups (n = 36). They were given an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) of 2% lidocaine with 1:80.000 epinephrine or a primary MBI of 4% articaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine in the IANB and MBI groups, respectively. Patients in the IANB + MBI group received an IANB followed by an MBI. Pain levels during the injection, access cavity preparation, and initial filing were recorded on the Heft-Parker visual analog scale (HP-VAS). No or mild pain (HP-VAS ≤ 54) upon access cavity preparation and initial filing was considered a success. Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

MBI (77.8%) and IANB + MBI (94.4%) had both significantly higher success rates than IANB (50.0%) (P < .001). However, when the Bonferroni adjustment was applied, there was no statistically significant difference between the MBI and IANB + MBI techniques (P = .041 > .017). MBI was associated with significantly less injection pain than IANB (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both primary and supplemental MBI with 4% articaine were superior to IANB with 2% lidocaine in mandibular first and second molars diagnosed with SIP. Further research may be needed to confirm the findings of this study.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The findings of this study suggest that supplemental or primary MBI can be a clinically viable alternative to IANB, which has a relatively low success rate when managing mandibular molars diagnosed with SIP.

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.

Success of Pulpal Anesthesia Following Buccal Infiltration of the Maxillary First Molar With 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of 4% Articaine With 1:100,000 Epinephrine: A Prospective, Randomized Crossover Study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this prospective, randomized crossover study was to compare the peak incidence of success, onset, and incidence over time of pulpal anesthesia in maxillary first molars following a buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL or 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100 000 epinephrine.

METHODS

A total of 118 adults received 1.8 mL or 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100 000 epinephrine via buccal infiltration of the maxillary first molar at 2 separate appointments. Electric pulp testing (EPT) of the maxillary first molar was performed over 68 minutes.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the peak incidence of anesthetic success (85% and 92%, respectively) in the maxillary first molar between 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL. The difference in onset times (4.5 min for 1.8 mL vs 4.4 min for 3.6 mL) was not statistically significant. However, the 3.6-mL volume did produce a significantly higher incidence of pulpal anesthesia from minutes 48 to 68 compared with the 1.8-mL volume.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in peak incidence or onset of pulpal anesthesia in the maxillary first molar between 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of articaine with epinephrine. The incidence of pulpal anesthesia was significantly higher with 3.6 mL of articaine at 48 minutes and beyond, but neither volume provided complete pulpal anesthesia for all subjects that lasted at least 60 minutes.

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.

Can buccal infiltration of articaine replace traditional inferior alveolar nerve block for the treatment of mandibular molars in pediatric patients?: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

It is unclear if buccal articaine infiltration can be used as an alternative to standard inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for treating mandibular molars in pediatric patients. Therefore, this study aimed to pool evidence to compare the efficacy of buccal infiltration of articaine vs IANB with lignocaine for pediatric dental procedures.

Material and Methods

We searched the PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the two techniques in pediatric patients and reporting the success of anesthesia and/or pain during treatment. PRISMA guidelines were followed.

Results

Seven RCTs were included. Pooled analysis of five studies indicated no statistically significant difference in the success rates of the two anesthetic techniques (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.13, 7.96; I2=69%, p=0.98). Meta-analysis of data from the four studies demonstrated no statistically significant difference in pain during the procedure with buccal infiltration of articaine or IANB with lignocaine (SMD: 0.62; 95% CI: -1.37, 0.12; I2=88%, p=0.10).

Conclusions

Evidence suggests that buccal infiltration of articaine is a viable alternative to IANB with lignocaine in pediatric patients for treating mandibular molars. Based on the confidence intervals, there may be a tendency of higher success rates with buccal infiltration of articaine.

Key words:Lignocaine, articaine, primary dentition, children, molars.

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.

Anesthetic efficacy in vital asymptomatic teeth using different local anesthetics: a systematic review with network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of various local anesthesia (LA) in vital asymptomatic teeth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Randomized controlled trials comparing pulpal anesthesia of various LA on vital asymptomatic teeth were included in this review. Searches were conducted in the Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar and 3 field-specific journals from inception to May 3, 2019. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool were done by 2 independent reviewers in duplicate. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed within the frequentist setting using STATA 15.0. The LA was ranked, and the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) line was plotted. The confidence of the NMA estimates was assessed using the CINeMA web application.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 1,678 potentially eligible reports, but only 42 were included in this review. For maxillary buccal infiltration, articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 was more efficacious than lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000 (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-3.89). For mandibular buccal infiltration, articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 was more efficacious than various lidocaine solutions. The SUCRA ranking was highest for articaine 4% with epinephrine when used as maxillary and mandibular buccal infiltrations, and lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:80,000 when used as inferior alveolar nerve block. Inconsistency and imprecision were detected in some of the NMA estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Articaine 4% with epinephrine is superior when maxillary or mandibular infiltration is required in vital asymptomatic teeth.

Comparison of Effects Exerted by 4% Articaine Buccal Infiltration and 2% Lidocaine Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block on Pain Perception and Behavioral Feedback of Children during Pulp Treatment of Mandibular Second Primary Molars

Background: One of the most impressive factors discouraging many people from seeking dental treatment is the fear of experiencing pain during dental procedures. Thus, the use of an effective method for pain control is vital in this regard. Articaine, which has an additional ester and thiophene groups that increase its biosolubility and permeability compared to older anesthetic agents, can be more effective on inducing anesthesia during dental treatment. Given the inconsistent currently available information on this concept, the present study was designed to compare the efficacy of articaine with that of lidocaine on pain control during pulp treatment of deciduous molar. Methods and materials: In this cross-sectional study, 38 patients who needed pulpotomy in both mandibular second molar of primary teeth were randomly divided into two groups, using the Randlist software. In the first meeting, infiltration with articaine 4% (epinephrine 1/100 000) was performed for all patients in group 1 on the left side of the mandible. At the next appointment, inferior alveolar nerve block was done with lidocaine 2% on the right side of the mandible (epinephrine 1/80 000). Notably, for all patients in the second group, the first injection was performed on the right second primary molar with articaine 4% (epinephrine 1/100 000), and inferior alveolar nerve block was also done with lidocaine 2% on the left side of the mandible (epinephrine 1/80 000). Results:Of the 38 patients included in the current study, 10 (26.3%) subjects in the lidocaine group and nine (23.6%) in the articaine group complained of pain during their dental treatment procedures, but this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion: According to the findings of this study, buccal infiltration of 4% articaine had a comparable anesthetic outcome to that of 2% lidocaine for inferior alveolar nerve block in pulp treatment of the second primary mandibular molars.

Promising potential of articaine-loaded poly(epsilon-caprolactone) nanocapules for intraoral topical anesthesia

To determine whether the permeation capacity and analgesic efficacy of articaine (ATC) could be increased and cytotoxicity decreased by encapsulation in poly(ɛ-caprolactone) nanocapsules (ATC_nano), aiming at local or topical anesthesia in dentistry. Cellular viability was evaluated (using the MTT test and fluorescence microscopy) after 1 h and 24 h exposure of HaCaT cells to ATC, ATC_nano, ATC with epinephrine (ATC_epi), and ATC in nanocapsules with epinephrine (ATC_nanoepi). The profiles of permeation of 2% ATC and 2% ATC_nano across swine esophageal epithelium were determined using Franz-type vertical diffusion cells. Analgesic efficacy was evaluated with a von Frey anesthesiometer in a postoperative pain model in rats, comparing the 2% ATC, 2% ATC_nano, 2% ATC_epi, and 2% ATC_nanoepi formulations to 4% ATC_epi (a commercially available formulation). We show that use of the nanocapsules decreased the toxicity of articaine (P<0.0001) and increased its flux (P = 0.0007). The 2% ATC_epi and 4% ATC_epi formulations provided higher analgesia success and duration (P<0.05), compared to 2% ATC, 2% ATC_nano, and 2% ATC_nanoepi. Articaine-loaded poly(ɛ-caprolactone) nanocapsules constitute a promising formulation for intraoral topical anesthesia (prior to local anesthetic injection), although it is not effective when injected in inflamed tissues for pain control, such as irreversible pulpitis.

Pulpal-anesthesia of a mandibular first molar with irreversible pulpitis by inferior alveolar nerve block plus buccal infiltration using articaine or lignocaine

Introduction:

This study aims to compare the efficacy of a combination of an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) plus buccal infiltration using 4% articaine versus 2% lignocaine in achieving anesthesia of lower first molar teeth with irreversible pulpitis.

Materials and Methods:

Seventy adult patients were selected. A random sequence list was employed to administer IANB plus buccal infiltration. After the onset of lip numbness, cold test and electric pulp testing were performed. Five patients, four missed blocks and one no bleeding, were excluded. Heft Parker Visual Analog Scale scores during pulp extirpation were recorded. The data of sixty-five patients were statistically analyzed using Chi-square and Mann–Whitney U-test.

Results:

The success rate after lip-numbness for articaine is 91.42% and for lignocaine is 94.28%. The difference is statistically, not significant (P = 0.6425). During access, the success rate for lignocaine is 96.87%, whereas 96.96% for articaine. This difference is also not significant (P = 0.982366).

Conclusion:

IANB plus buccal infiltration using articaine or lignocaine is equally effective in anesthetizing mandibular first molar with irreversible pulpitis.

Comparison of articaine, lidocaine and mepivacaine for buccal infiltration after inferior alveolar nerve block in mandibular posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis

Aims To compare the anaesthetic efficacy of articaine, lidocaine and mepivacaine for buccal infiltration (BI) following lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in mandibular posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis.Materials and methods Patients with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth and unsuccessful IANB were randomly assigned to three groups: articaine group (n = 52), lidocaine group (n = 52) and mepivacaine group (n = 52). They were instructed to rate the pain experienced at four phases (before the injection, after IANB, after BI and during endodontic access) on a Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (VAS). Success was defined as the ability to access and instrument the tooth with no pain or mild pain (VAS rating ≤54 mm) after BI.Results Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that articaine was associated with a higher success rate compared with lidocaine (OR = 3.89, 95% CI: 1.35-11.27; P = 0.02) and mepivacaine (OR = 3.67, 95% CI: 1.24-9.75; P = 0.01), after controlling for age, gender and initial pain. VAS ratings were significantly lower in the articaine group compared with those in the lidocaine group and mepivacaine group after BI and during endodontic access (P <0.01).Conclusion Articaine as a supplemental BI following IANB is a more successful anaesthetic agent in mandibular posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis compared with lidocaine and mepivacaine.

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.

Does articaine, rather than prilocaine, increase the success rate of anaesthesia for extraction of maxillary teeth

Objective:

To compare the anesthetic performances of 3% prilocaine and 4% articaine when used for the extraction of the maxillary teeth.

Materials and Methods:

Ninety-five patients, aged between 16 and 70 years, were included in this study. Patients were divided into two groups. Group one received articaine 4% with 1:00.000 adrenaline. Group two received prilocaine with 3% felypressin (0.03 I.U. per ml). Onset time of anesthesia was objectively evaluated by using electronic pulp testing.

Results:

Eighty-five patients in this study had a successful local anesthetic followed by extraction within the study duration time (10 minutes). However, there were six patients with failure anesthesia (5 in prilocaine group and 1 in articaine group). By applying Person's Chi-square test (x2), there were no significant differences in the number of episodes of the anesthetic success between articaine and prilocaine groups at time intervals (P = 0.5). T-test showed that there have been no important variations within the mean onset time of anesthesia for articaine and prilocaine buccal infiltrations (P = 0.1).

Conclusions:

3% Prilocaine with felypressin is as effective as 4% articaine with adrenaline when used for the extraction of maxillary teeth. Recommendations would be given to the dental practitioners to use prilocaine more frequently than articaine because of its low toxicity.

Trial registration number:

NCT04236115.

Comparative study of the anaesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine with adrenaline during extraction of mandibular molars using an inferior alveolar nerve blocking technique

Various anaesthetic agents have been used in dentistry for the extraction of teeth. The most commonly used local anaesthetic agent is lidocaine hydrochloride. Recently, articaine hydrochloride came into existence because of its versatile properties and longer duration of action. Due to lack of study of effects of articaine on various systems, the present study is aimed to compare the anaesthetic efficacy of articaine and lidocaine with adrenaline during the extraction of mandibular molars. A total of 100 patients was randomly divided into two groups (50 each) and clinical variables such onset and duration of anaesthesia, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, pulse rate, and pain perception were recorded at different time intervals using a visual analogue scale. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 22.0. Mean and standard deviations, frequency distribution analysis, and the chi squared test were performed to calculate variables and a p< 0.05 was considered significant. Statistically significant differences were obtained regarding mean time of onset of anaesthesia (p< 0.001), mean duration of the anaesthetic effect (p< 0.001), and pain perception for the articaine group. No significant results were obtained for blood pressure, oxygen saturation, or pulse rate. During the deposition of articaine, patients reported less pain than with lidocaine. Articaine hydrochloride helped to achieve increased anaesthetic success in dental applications over lidocaine hydrochloride in terms of fast time of onset, longer duration, and less pain, all of which were attributed to its greater diffusion properties.

The anesthetic efficiency of retromolar infiltrations with two local anesthetic solutions of the same concentration in lower third molar surgery

Background

Mandibular third molar removal is the most common surgical procedure encountered in oral and maxillofacial clinics. It also presents the greatest challenges and controversies for surgeons when surgical removal is considered. Furthermore, diverse anesthesia results and success rates are achieved after using the same concentrations of different solutions or the same amounts of local anesthetics. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficiency of using double-cartridge (3.4 ml) 4% lidocaine (high concentration) and 4% articaine with a 1:100000 epinephrine infiltration in the retromolar region for impacted lower third molar surgery.

Methods

This double-blind study included 30 patients with symmetrically impacted lower third molars. The patients were randomly selected to receive 4% articaine on one side and 4% lidocaine on the other, as a local anesthetic for third molar surgery. The onset, duration of soft-tissue numbness, pulpal sensitivity, amount of additional local anesthetic needed, pain score during the surgical procedure, and duration of the operation were recorded.

Results

The results of this research indicate that 86.7% of the operations in the 4% articaine group and 83.3% of those in the 4% lidocaine group were successful. Furthermore, the outcomes in both groups were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Numbness onset occurred faster in the articaine group than it did in the lidocaine group. However, the duration of soft-tissue anesthesia and pain scores recorded immediately postoperatively were similar.

Conclusion

It is concluded that 4% lidocaine and 4% articaine had a similar infiltration efficacy in the retromolar region and both local anesthetics are adequate for impacted lower third molar surgery. There were no statistically significant differences between the two local anesthetics regarding pain control and the duration of soft-tissue numbness during the procedure.

Narrative review: the evidence for neurotoxicity of dental local anesthetics

Dental local anesthesia is performed daily on a global scale. Adverse effects are rare, but the topic of neurotoxicity of local anesthetics deserves to be explored, as publications can be controversial and confusing. Therefore, a need was felt to address and question the evidence for potential neurotoxicity of dental local anesthetics. This review aimed to assess the studies published on the neurotoxicity of dental local anesthetics. A Pubmed® search was conducted between January 2019 and August 2019. This revealed 2802 hits on the topic of neurotoxicity or cytotoxicity of the following anesthetics: lidocaine, prilocaine, mepivacaine, articaine, ropivacaine, and bupivacaine. Only 23 papers were deemed eligible for this review: 17 in vitro studies, 3 reviews and 3 audits of national inquiries. The heterogeneous literature on this topic showed that all dental local anesthetics are potentially neurotoxic in a concentration and/or exposure time fashion. There seems no consensus about what cell lines are to be used to investigate the neurotoxicity of local anesthetics, which makes the comparison between studies difficult and ambiguous. However, the bottom line is that all dental local anesthetics have a neurotoxic potential, but that there is no unanimity in the publications about which local anesthetic is the least or the most neurotoxic.

Is prilocaine safe and potent enough for use in the oral surgery of medically compromised patients

Objectives:

To investigate the potency and speed of action of 2% lidocaine and 3% prilocaine for upper teeth extractions.

Methods:

This prospective clinical study was conducted from November 2016 to May 2017. Ninety-six patients, aged between 16 to 70 years old were recruited in this study. Two regimens were randomly administered over one visit. Patients, treatment group I, received 2% lidocaine with 1:00.000 adrenaline. Patients treatment group II received prilocaine 3% and felypressin 0.03 I.U. per ml. The efficacy of pulp anesthesia was determined by electronic pulp testing. At any point of trial (10 minutes), the anesthetized tooth becomes unresponsive for maximal pulp stimulation (64 reading), the extraction was carried out.

Results:

There were no significant differences in the mean onset time of pulpal anesthesia and extraction between the prilocaine and lidocaine buccal infiltration groups (p=0.28). However, clinically, the patients in prilocaine group recorded faster onset time of anesthesia and teeth extraction than those in lidocaine group.

Conclusion:

Prilocaine has a better clinical performance in terms of providing rapid dental anesthesia and earlier teeth extraction than lidocaine but the differences were not significant. Prilocaine with felypressin could be a good choice for patients who have contraindication to the use of lidocaine with adrenaline.

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.

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.

2% lidocaine versus 3% prilocaine for oral and maxillofacial surgery

Objective

To investigate the speed of action and injection discomfort of 2% lidocaine and 3% prilocaine for upper teeth extractions.

Materials and Methods

Forty-six patients were included in the prilocaine 3% group, and 46 in the lidocaine 2% control group. After all injections, soft and hard tissue numbness was objectively gauged by dental probe at intervals of 15 s. Moreover, the pain of the injections was recorded by the patients after each treatment on standard 100 mm visual analog scales, tagged at the endpoints with "no pain" (0 mm) and "unbearable pain" (100 mm).

Results

There were no significant differences in the meantime of first numbness to associated buccal, palatal mucosa, and tooth of patients in the lidocaine and prilocaine buccal infiltration groups (P = 0.56, 0.37, and 0.33). However, clinically, the patients in prilocaine group recorded earlier buccal, palatal mucosa, and teeth numbness than those in lidocaine group. With regards to the discomfort of the needle injections, there was a significant difference for lidocaine and prilocaine groups when comparing the post buccal scores with the post palatal injection scores (t-test: P < 0.001). Lidocaine and prilocaine buccal injections were significantly more comfortable than palatal injections.

Conclusions

Using 2% lidocaine and 3% prilocaine for extractions of upper maxillary teeth produces similarly successful anesthesia. Clinically, prilocaine has slightly rapid onset of action, earlier buccal mucosa, hard palate, and teeth numbness. Prilocaine and lidocaine buccal injection was significantly more comfortable than palatal injection.

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.

Anesthetic Efficacy of a Combination of 4% Prilocaine/2% Lidocaine with Epinephrine for the Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Study

INTRODUCTION

Prilocaine plain has a high pH and concentration (4%), which could decrease the pain of injection and increase success. The purpose of this study was to compare pain associated with anesthetic solution deposition and the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with the combination of prilocaine and lidocaine versus a lidocaine and lidocaine combination when used for inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANBs).

METHODS

One hundred eighteen asymptomatic subjects were randomly given a combination of 1 cartridge of 4% prilocaine plain plus 1 cartridge of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or a combination of 2 cartridges of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for the IANB at 2 separate appointments. Subjects rated the pain associated with anesthetic solution deposition of injection. Mandibular teeth were tested with an electric pulp tester every 4 minutes for 57 minutes. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained within 17 minutes and the 80 reading was continuously sustained for 57 minutes. Comparisons for anesthetic success were analyzed using the exact McNemar test, and pain ratings associated with anesthetic solution deposition were analyzed using multiple Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank tests; both were adjusted using the step-down Bonferroni method of Holm.

RESULTS

Four percent prilocaine plain was significantly less painful upon anesthetic solution deposition. Pulpal anesthetic success was not significantly different between the 2 combinations.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of 4% prilocaine plain plus 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine did not increase pulpal anesthetic success for IANBs compared with a combination of 2 cartridges of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Pain associated with anesthetic solution deposition from the first cartridge of 4% prilocaine plain was significantly less when compared with the first cartridge of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine.

Efficacy of Articaine versus Lidocaine in Supplemental Infiltration for Mandibular First versus Second Molars with Irreversible Pulpitis: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Profound pulpal anesthesia is difficult to achieve in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis (IP). However, there are no published randomized controlled clinical trials comparing the success of supplemental buccal infiltration (BI) in mandibular first versus second molars with IP. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the efficacy of 4% articaine with 2% lidocaine for supplemental BIs in mandibular first versus second molars with IP after a failed inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). This study's sample was combined with data from a previous trial.

METHODS

One hundred ninety-nine emergency subjects diagnosed with IP of a mandibular molar were selected and received an IANB with 4% articaine. Subjects who failed to achieve profound pulpal anesthesia, determined by a positive response to cold or pain upon access, randomly received 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine as a supplemental BI. Endodontic access was begun 5 minutes after infiltration. Success was defined as less than mild pain during endodontic access and instrumentation on the Heft-Parker visual analog scale.

RESULTS

There was a 25% IANB success rate with 4% articaine. The success rate for articaine supplemental BI in first molars was 61% versus 63% for second molars (P > .05). The success of lidocaine in first molars was 66%, but for second molars it was 32% (P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

The success rate for IANB with 4% articaine was 25%. Articaine and lidocaine had similar success rates for supplemental infiltration in first molars, whereas articaine was significantly more successful for second molars. However, because BI often did not provide profound pulpal anesthesia, additional techniques including intraosseous anesthesia may still be required.

In vitro oral epithelium cytotoxicity and in vivo inflammatory inducing effects of anesthetic rice gel

In vitro cytotoxicity of lidocaine hydrochloride (LH) and prilocaine hydrochloride (PH) to oral epithelial cells, isolated from tissue specimens of healthy volunteers, were evaluated. Cell vitality after treating with 1-20% anesthetic solutions for 5 and 30 min was investigated using F-actin and 4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole staining technique and observed by fluorescence microscopy. Vitality rate of more than 90% was found in all anesthetic groups at both durations whereas no survived cell was found in a positive control group (sodium dodecyl sulfate). Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) assay was performed to confirm the safety of both anesthetic solutions. Cell culture medium after treating with LH or PH for 5 and 30 min were collected and analyzed using commercial kits. The results showed no significant difference between the test groups and negative control group (untreated culture) with low LDH levels. In vivo inflammatory inducing effect of 5, 10, 20% LH or PH loaded rice gels was investigated in healthy volunteers. Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) in gingival cervicular fluid was determined by ELISA technique. It was found that the expression of TNF-α was not different from the baseline. The expression of this inflammatory mediator caused by the commercial gel was higher than those of both anesthetic rice gels. It might be due to the effects of other excipients in the formulation of the commercial product. It is concluded that LH or PH possess no cytotoxicity to oral epithelium and the developed rice gel base and LH and PH rice gels do not induce inflammatory effect to oral tissues.

Comparison of anesthetic efficacy of 2 and 4 % articaine in inferior alveolar nerve block for tooth extraction-a double-blinded randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this clinical prospective, randomized, double-blind trial was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 2 % articaine and 4 % articaine in inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia for extraction of mandibular teeth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 95 patients, 105 lower molar and premolar teeth were extracted after intraoral inferior alveolar nerve block. In 53 cases, 2 % articaine (group I) and, in 52 cases, 4 % articaine (group II) was administered. The primary objective was to analyze the differences of anesthetic effects between the two groups (complete/sufficient vs. insufficient/none). Furthermore, differences in pulpal anesthesia (onset and depth, examined with pulp vitality tester (min)), as well as in length of soft tissue anesthesia (min), were evaluated. Additionally, the need of a second injection, pain while injecting (numeric rating scale (NRS)), pain during treatment (NRS), pain after treatment (NRS), and other possible complications (excessive pain, bleeding events, prolonged deafness) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Anesthesia was sufficient for dental extractions in both groups without significant differences (p = 0.201). The onset of anesthesia did not differ significantly (p = 0.297). A significantly shorter duration of soft tissue anesthesia was seen in group I (2.9 vs. 4 h; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the need for a second injection (p = 0.359), in injection pain (p = 0.386), as well as in pain during (p = 0.287) or after treatment (p = 0.121). In both groups, no complications were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

The local anesthetic effect of the 4 % articaine solution is not significantly better when compared to 2 % articaine.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

For mandibular tooth extraction, articaine 2 % may be used as alternative as well.

The effectiveness of articaine in mandibular facial infiltrations

Four percent articaine local anesthetic has been successfully used to attain local anesthesia for dental procedures. Mandibular block anesthesia may consume longer time to attain and have a higher failure of local anesthesia compared to infiltration. Mandibular facial infiltration has been reported to successfully attain effective local anesthesia for dental procedures. This study involved only several tooth sites and found that 1.8 cc of 4% articaine facial infiltration in the mandible may be effective when the facial mandibular cortex is <2.0–3.0 mm. A waiting time of 5–10 minutes may be required for effective anesthesia. An additional 1.8 cc of dose may be required to attain anesthesia if an initial 1.8 cc of dose fails. The need for additional anesthetic may be predicted by a measurement of the facial cortex using cone beam computerized tomography. A study of mandibular sites is needed to delineate the anatomical dimensions, density of cortical bone, and apical neural location for ensuring successful local anesthetic infiltration.

Efficacy and Safety of 2% and 4% Articaine for Lower Third Molar Surgery

This double-blind crossover randomized clinical trial compared the efficacy of 2 concentrations of articaine, 2% (A2) and 4% (A4), with 1:200,000 epinephrine, for lower third molar removal. During 2 separate appointments with either A2 or A4, both similarly positioned lower third molars in 46 volunteers were extracted. The following were evaluated: onset and duration of anesthetic action on soft tissues, intraoperative bleeding, hemodynamic parameters, postoperative analgesia, and mouth opening and wound healing during the 7th postoperative day, along with the incidence, type, and severity of adverse reactions. Nearly identical volumes of both anesthetic solutions were used for each appointment: 3.4 ± 0.9 mL ≈ 68 mg of articaine (A2) and 3.3 ± 0.8 mL ≈ 132 mg of articaine (A4). Statistical analysis indicated no differences in onset or duration of anesthetic action on soft tissues or duration of postoperative analgesia evoked by A2 and A4 anesthetic solutions (P > 0.05). The surgeon's rating of intraoperative bleeding was considered minimal throughout all surgery with both anesthetic solutions. While transient changes in blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation were observed, these factors were clinically insignificant and were uninfluenced by articaine concentration (P > 0.05). No systemic or local adverse reactions were observed in the preoperative and postoperative periods due to A2 or A4, but 1 case of bilateral paresthesia was observed. There were no significant differences between preoperative and postoperative (7th day) values of mouth opening and wound healing whether volunteers received A2 or A4 (P > 0.05). In conclusion, both A2 and A4, administered in equal volumes, were effective and safe during lower third molar surgery, and no significant differences were found between their efficacy and safety (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02457325).

Buffered 4% Articaine as a Primary Buccal Infiltration of the Mandibular First Molar: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Study

INTRODUCTION

Articaine is superior to lidocaine when used as a primary buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar. Buffered local anesthetics have been purported to improve anesthetic success. Buffering a 4% articaine formulation may increase the success of a mandibular first molar buccal infiltration. The purpose of this study was to compare the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with a buffered 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine formulation versus a nonbuffered 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine formulation as a primary buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar.

METHODS

Eighty adults randomly received mandibular buccal infiltrations using 4% articaine with 100,000 epinephrine buffered with 8.4% sodium bicarbonate (18 mEq) and 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in a double-blind manner at 2 separate appointments. An electric pulp tester was used to test the first molar for pulpal anesthesia every 30 seconds for the first 5 minutes and every minute for the remaining 55 minutes. Successful pulpal anesthesia was defined as 2 consecutive 80/80 readings with the electric pulp tester. Pain ratings for each injection were recorded as well as the onset time of pulpal anesthesia.

RESULTS

Anesthetic success rates for buffered articaine and nonbuffered articaine were 71% and 65%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the formulations (P = .3018). No significant differences were found between the 2 formulations for pain of injection or onset of anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Buffered articaine did not provide any advantage over nonbuffered articaine for anesthetic success, anesthesia onset, or pain of injection for a primary buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar.