Factors affecting the success rate of buccal infiltration anaesthesia in the mandibular molar region

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.

Efficacy of intraseptal anesthesia obtained by computer-controlled articaine with epinephrine delivery in scaling and root planing

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of the intraseptal anesthesia (ISA) obtained with three doses of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (4%Ar + Ep) for scaling and root planing (SRP), using a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system (CCLADS). The secondary aims were to compare the clinical anesthetic parameters in relation to different jaw regions and examine the possible influence of sex and smoking habits on them.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

SRP under ISA obtained with different doses (0.1 ml, 0.2 ml, and 0.3 ml) of 4%Ar + Ep was performed in 360 patients. The success rate, onset, duration of soft tissue anesthesia, and the anesthetic field widths were recorded by pinprick testing.

RESULTS

The anesthesia success was high (90-95%). The onset was immediate. The duration and anesthetic field widths showed a dose-related significance, however, without a consistent sex-related or smoking-related significance. The multiple logistic regression analysis revealed a twofold higher chance of anesthesia success by increasing the dose and increased bleeding on probing-related and female sex-reduced probability of anesthesia success.

CONCLUSIONS

ISA obtained with 0.3 ml of 4%Ar + Ep delivered by a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system provided a high anesthetic success and the adequate clinical anesthetic parameters for SRP in all regions of both jaws.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

ISA obtained with 4%Ar + Ep provides an effective anesthesia for SRP. The anesthetic success rate may be reduced in the presence of gingival inflammation and in females as well. The study was registered in a Clinical Trials database (NCT04392804, registration date May 9, 2020).

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.

Anaesthetic efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine in children's dentistry: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Over the last few years, numerous reviews and studies have awarded articaine hydrochloride local anaesthetic (LA) a superior reputation, with outcomes of different studies demonstrating a general tendency for articaine hydrochloride to outperform lidocaine hydrochloride for dental treatment. Nevertheless, there seems to be no clear agreement on which LA solution is more efficacious in dental treatment for children. There is no previous publication systematically reviewing and summarising the current best evidence with respect to the success rates of LA solutions in children.

AIMS

To evaluate the available evidence on the efficacy of lidocaine and articaine, used in paediatric dentistry.

DESIGN

A systematic search was conducted on Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (OVID; 1950 to June 2017), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCOhost; 1982 to June 2017), EMBASE (OVID; 1980 to June 2017), SCI-EXPANDED (ISI Web of Knowledge; 1900 to June 2017), key journals, and previous review bibliographies through June 2017. Original research studies that compared articaine with lidocaine for dental treatment in children were included. Methodological quality assessment and assessment of risk of bias were carried out for each of the included studies.

RESULTS

Electronic searching identified 525 publications. Following the primary and secondary assessment process, six randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included in the final analysis. There was no difference between patient self-reported pain between articaine and lidocaine during treatment procedures (SMD = 0.06, P-value = 0.614), and no difference in the occurrence of adverse events between articaine and lidocaine injections following treatment in paediatric patients (RR = 1.10, P-value = 0.863). Yet, patients reported significantly less pain post-procedure following articaine injections (SMD = 0.37, P-value = 0.013). Substantial heterogeneity was noted in the reporting of outcomes among studies, with the overall quality of majority of studies being at high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

There is low quality evidence suggesting that both articaine as infiltration and lidocaine IAD nerve blocks presented the same efficacy when used for routine dental treatments, with no difference between patient self-reported pain between articaine and lidocaine during treatment procedures. Yet, significantly less pain post-procedure was reported following articaine injections. There was no difference in the occurrence of adverse events between articaine and lidocaine injections following treatment in paediatric patients.

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.

Comparison of onset anesthesia time and injection discomfort of 4% articaine and 2% mepivacaine during teeth extractions

Objective:

To investigate the speed of action and injection discomfort of 4% articaine and 2% mepivacaine for upper teeth extractions.

Materials and Methods:

Forty-five patients were included in the articaine 4% group, and 45 in the mepivacaine 2% control group. After all injections, soft and hard tissue numbness was objectively gauged by dental probe at intervals of 15 s. Furthermore, the discomfort of the injections were 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 significant differences in the meantime of first numbness to associated palatal mucosa and tooth of patients between mepivacaine and articaine buccal infiltration (BI) groups P = 0.01 and 0.01. Patients in the articaine group recorded earlier palatal mucosa and teeth numbness than those in the mepivacaine group. With regards to the discomfort of the needle injections, palatal injection was significantly more painful than BI (t-test: P < 0.001). Articaine buccal injection was significantly more painful than mepivacaine buccal injection (t-test: P <0.001). However, articaine palatal injection was less painful than articaine BI. Clinically, anesthesia onset time was faster in anterior upper teeth than upper middle and posterior teeth.

Conclusions:

BIs with 4% articaine was faster in achieving palate and teeth anesthesia than 2% mepivacaine for extraction of upper maxillary teeth. Patients in mepivacaine BI and articaine palatal injection groups reported less pain with needle injection. Failure of anesthesia was noticeable with maxillary multiple-rooted teeth.

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.