The use of the mandibular infiltration anesthetic technique in adults

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.

Articaine versus Lidocaine in only buccal infiltration anesthesia for the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth. A prospective split-mouth randomized-controlled clinical study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of a single labial infiltration of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine for the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth without an additional lingual injection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective, randomized-controlled, split-mouth clinical study was implemented. Healthy adult patients seeking bilateral extraction of mandibular anterior teeth were included in this study. Teeth extractions were randomly assigned to two equal groups, where one mandibular anterior tooth was extracted using a solitary labial infiltration of either 4% articaine (the study group) or 2% lidocaine (the control group). After 14 days, the other mandibular anterior tooth was extracted using the other local anesthetic agent. The selection of the anesthetic agent injected in the first session was done in a randomized fashion. After 5 min of local anesthetic injection, the tooth was extracted, and each patient was asked to record the intensity of the extraction pain using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients were included in the study. The efficacy of a single labial injection for mandibular anterior teeth extraction was established by the fact that none of the patients in the study or control group required re-administration of local anesthesia. The mean VAS for pain control during tooth extraction was 1.16 ± 0.93 for the articaine group and 1.71 ± 0.90 for the lidocaine group. The pain score showed a statistically significant decrease in the articaine group compared to that in the lidocaine group (P = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

Although the anesthetic effects of only buccal infiltration of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine for extraction of mandibular anterior teeth were comparable, the use of 4% articaine would have more effective and predictable outcomes.

CLINICALTRIALS

ORG: (ID: NCT05223075) 3/2/2022.

Can Single Buccal Infiltration With 4% Articaine Induce Sufficient Analgesia for the Extraction of Maxillary Teeth? A Systematic Literature Review

This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of single buccal infiltration of articaine for extracting upper teeth. A search of the PubMed, Ovid SP, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases for English-language studies published between 2000 and 2021 was performed on August 26, 2022, based on the pre-specified question using the MeSH terms [(buccal) and (articaine) and (infiltration) and (dental)]. Of the 16 clinical trials identified involving 1,339 patients, six compared the subjective procedural pain associated with single buccal infiltration of articaine with that of lidocaine, three of which reported reduced pain and the other three greater success in extraction for the articaine group. Four of the 16 studies compared the procedural pain associated with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with double (buccal and palatal/lingual) infiltration; two reported insignificant differences between the groups; and the other two reported greater success using buccal and palatal injections. Five of the 16 studies compared the procedural pain associated with single buccal articaine with double buccal and palatal/lingual infiltration of 2% lidocaine and reported insignificant differences. The other of the 16 studies compared the subjective pain associated with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine 1:100:000 with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine 1:200:000 and found a statistically significant difference. All of these studies concluded that upper permanent maxillary teeth can be extracted using only a 4% articaine buccal infiltration, but further investigation is necessary to determine whether this approach can replace the gold standard of buccal and palatal infiltration.

A comparative assessment of efficacy and preference between needleless device INJEX and insulin syringe for anesthetizing primary maxillary teeth in children aged 4-9 years: A split-mouth crossover randomized clinical study

insulin syringe for anesthetizing primary maxillary teeth in children aged 4-9 years.

Materials and Methods

This randomized clinical study included 46 children aged 4-9 years. The patients were digitally allotted to receive 4% articaine for extractions of primary maxillary teeth, either using needleless device INJEX or insulin syringe on each side of the maxillary arch, in two different appointments after a 1-week washout period. Pain perception was measured by the subjective (Faces Pain Scale-Revised [FPS-R]) and objective pain scores (Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability [FLACC]) and hemodynamic parameters (heart rate and oxygen saturation) during LA administration and during extractions. After the second appointment, children were asked about their preference between needleless device INJEX and insulin syringe.

Results

On evaluating subjective pain scores with FPS-R, intergroup differences between the INJEX and insulin syringe groups were found statistically insignificant, both during LA administration (P = 0.101) and extraction (P = 0.080). However, on assessing pain objectively during extraction using FLACC, the mean pain score was less with insulin syringe (2.78) as compared to INJEX (4.72) and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.000). There was no significant difference in patient preference between the two methods.

Conclusion

Pain perception was minimal during local anesthesia administration using needleless device INJEX; however, its clinical efficacy during extractions was reported to be lower than insulin syringe.

Background

Managing pain in children is the most challenging task as it forms the foundation for instilling positive behavior toward dental treatment. Adequate local anesthesia (LA) is the cornerstone of pain management. However, the fear of needles, particularly in young children, can result in complete avoidance and refusal of treatment.

Aim

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and preference between needleless device INJEX and.

Comparative study of the anaesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% mepivacaine in mandibular third molar germectomy using different anaesthetic techniques: a split-mouth clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Currently, one of the most discouraging aspects for many patients undergoing dental procedures is the administration of local anaesthesia. Therefore, there is a constant search for new techniques to avoid the invasive and painful nature of the injection. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of local anaesthetics with articaine 4% or mepivacaine 2% (both with epinephrine 1:100.000), using different anaesthetic techniques to perform germectomy of lower third molars and to assess patients' feelings and pain during surgery.

METHODS

Totally 50 patients (ranged 11-16 years) who required germectomy of mandibular third molars were recruited. Each patient received local anaesthesia on one side with articaine inoculated with plexus technique while on the other side with mepivacaine using inferior alveolar nerve block technique. The patients' evaluation was performed on pre and intraoperative tactile-pressure feelings and intraoperative pain with four levels on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Surgical operations lasted less with more efficient analgesia when articaine was used. The additional intraosseous injection was required mainly in the mepivacaine group intraoperatively. A few patients had tactile-pressure feelings while intraoperative pain sensation was absent in 90% of cases with articaine. Significant differences were found in the cases who reported "absent" and "moderate" VAS values, favoring the use of articaine.

CONCLUSIONS

Articaine injected with a plexus anaesthetic technique seems to be more clinically manageable than mepivacaine for the mandibular third molar germectomy. The discomfort of tactile-pressure feelings and pain experienced was lower using articaine anaesthetic technique used.

Efficacy of four local anaesthesia protocols for mandibular first molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: A randomized clinical trial

AIM

To examine the efficacy rate of four anaesthetic protocols in mandibular first molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP).

METHODOLOGY

One hundred and sixty patients with a diagnosis of SIP were included in this randomized clinical trial. Patients were randomly allocated into four treatment groups (N = 40) according to the administered technique: Group 1 (IANB): standard inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) injection; Group 2 (IANB + IO): standard IANB followed by a supplemental intraosseous infusion (IO) injection; Group 3 (IANB + PDL): standard IANB followed by a supplemental periodontal ligament (PDL) injection; Group 4 (IANB + BI): standard IANB followed by a supplemental buccal infiltration. Patients rated pain intensity using a verbal rating scale when the root canal treatment procedure was initiated, that is, during caries removal, access preparation and pulpectomy. Heart rate changes were recorded before, during and after each injection. The anaesthetic efficacy rates were analysed using chi-square tests, age differences using one-way anova, gender differences using Fischer Exact tests whilst heart rate changes were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis tests. Statistical significances were set at p < .05 level.

RESULTS

All the included patients were analysed. No differences in the efficacy rate were found in relation to the age or gender of the participants amongst the study groups (p > .05). IANB + IO injections had a significantly higher efficacy rate (92.5%) when compared to other techniques (p < .05), followed by IANB + PDL injections (72.5%), IANB + BI injections (65.0%), with no significant differences between the IANB + PDL or IANB + BI injections (p > .05). IANB injection alone had a significantly lower rate (40%) compared to the other techniques (p < .05). A transient but significant rise in the heart rate was recorded in 60% (24/40) of patients who received the IANB + IO injection compared to other groups (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Inferior alveolar nerve block injection alone did not reliably permit pain-free treatment for mandibular molars with SIP. The use of an additional IO supplemental injection provided the most effective anaesthesia for patients requiring emergency root canal treatment for SIP in mandibular posterior teeth.

Effect of pre-operative medication with paracetamol and ketorolac on the success of inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a double-blind randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of local anesthesia decreases in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Therefore, it was proposed that the use of premedication with an anti-inflammatory drug might increase the success rate of pulpal anesthesia in mandibular posterior teeth with vital inflamed pulp.

METHODS

One hundred thirty-four patients who were actively experiencing pain willingly participated in this study. The Heft Parker (HP) visual analog scale (VAS) was used to record the initial pain intensity. Patients were randomly allocated to receive a placebo, 10 mg of ketorolac, and 650 mg of paracetamol. The standard inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) was administered to all patients using 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 adrenaline after one hour of medication. After 15 min, the patient was instructed to rate the discomfort during each step of the treatment procedure, such as access to remaining dentin, access to the pulp chamber, and during canal instrumentation on the HP VAS. IANB was considered successful if the patient reported no or mild pain during access preparation and instrumentation. Moderate or severe pain was classified as a failure of IANB and another method of anesthesia was used before continuing the treatment.

RESULTS

The rate of successful anesthesia in the placebo, paracetamol, and ketorolac groups was 29%, 33%, and 43%, respectively, and no statistically significant difference was found between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative administration of paracetamol or ketorolac did not significantly affect the success rate of IANB in patients with irreversible pulpitis. No significant difference was observed between the paracetamol and ketorolac groups.

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.

Locoregional anesthesia for removal osteosynthesis hardware from healed corpus mandibularis fractures: A descriptive study of a series of 40 cases

INTRODUCTION

Locoregional anesthesia represents a very interesting modality for the removal of osteosynthesis hardware of the corpus mandibularis. Several procedures have been described, but each is dedicated to a single mandibular segment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The surgical records of 40 patients treated with rigid internal fixation after maxillofacial traumas were reviewed. Study variables included age, sex, site and number of plates, time of plate removal, reasons for plate removal, and postoperative.

RESULTS

Our study enrolled 40 patients, 45% of whom had single-focal plate placement and 55% of whom had bifocal plate placement. 66% of the patients with bifocal plate placement had the plates removed during the same operation. The average operative time was 45 min for bifocal and 28 min for single-focal approaches. Postoperative complications were observed only for the truncal analgesia procedure of the inferior alveolar nerve at the mandibular foramen. Anesthesia failure was reported in 2 patients.

DISCUSSION

Various locoregional anesthetic procedures are used to remove mandibular body plates but each has its indication depending on the mandibular segment being treated. Factors that can lead to failure of locoregional anesthesia are dominated by the state of inflammation at the site and patient anxiety which can be minimized by premedication with anxiolytics.

CONCLUSION

Locoregional anesthesia for removal of osteosynthesis hardware of the corpus mandibularis remains a good anesthetic method that is performed in good conditions when it is done in compliance with standards. Its use avoids the usual risks and complications that can occur under general anesthesia.

Local Anesthetic Usage Among Dentists: German and International Data

The aim of this study was to analyze the use of dental local anesthetics in Germany compared with international data. The type and distribution of dental local anesthetics and added vasoconstrictors based on a representative sample of German dentists itemized over a period of 7 years (2011 to 2017) were evaluated and statistically analyzed. The results were compared with international dental local anesthetic consumption data published since 2005. With a consistent market share of nearly 98%, articaine was the first-line local dental anesthetic agent in Germany. During the investigation period, German dental local anesthetics with epinephrine 1:200,000 had ∼50% market shares, whereas formulations with epinephrine 1:100,000 had 40% to 45% market shares. Articaine, with market shares between 38% and 81%, was also the preferred anesthetic agent in various other countries, with the notable exceptions of the United Kingdom and the United States, where lidocaine was the preferred local anesthetic agent. Epinephrine was the preferred vasoconstrictor internationally, similar to Germany. The larger market share of higher concentrated epinephrine 1:100,000 was remarkable, considering the increasing number of medically compromised patients. Increased consideration for using agents with reduced dosages of epinephrine (1:200,000) is generally recommended.

A 15-year unique observational study of intraligamentary local anaesthesia for posterior mandibular extractions

Introduction Intraligamentary local anaesthesia (ILA) with articaine is described as an effective alternative to inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for extraction of posterior teeth in the mandible, with reduced risk of complications.Aim To investigate ILA with 4% articaine and conventional syringe as a unique method for providing tooth extractions in the posterior mandible.Materials and methods All consecutive teeth to be extracted in the posterior mandible were recruited to the study, within exclusion criteria, between 2002 and 2017 in one London NHS and private dental practice. Four percent articaine was given by ILA with a conventional syringe slowly at two points lingual and two points buccal adjacent to each tooth. Extraction procedures were all performed flapless. Heavily broken-down teeth (n = 43) were extracted by sectioning of roots, guttering and elevation with luxators using socket preservation techniques. Demographic, quantitative and qualitative data were collected at initial appointments and up to 15 years at review.Results The median age was 64 years (interquartile range 17). Teeth extracted included 272 mandibular molars and second premolars, due to periodontal disease (34%), irreversible pulpitis (29%) or posterior tooth fracture (27%). The majority of extractions were second molars (44%), followed by first molars (29%), second premolars (17%) and third molars (10%). Sufficient anaesthesia was achieved within five minutes for all extractions. Procedures lasted less than 30 minutes. Patient feedback reported that the extraction using ILA was quicker than expected and painless, with limited anaesthesia of tissues other than the teeth to be extracted. Numeric rating scale (NRS) scores for pain (0-10) were all less than 3. No complications were recorded.Conclusion The ILA anaesthetic technique is effective for the purpose of a broad range of posterior tooth extractions in the mandible and within certain clinical parameters. It mitigates risks, including nerve injury and cardiovascular disturbances, associated with repeated IANB. This is the largest study of its kind and is conducted in primary care.

Is it possible to extract lower third molars with infiltration anaesthesia techniques using articaine? A double-blind randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) with additional buccal infiltration (standard technique) and of buccal and lingual anaesthetic infiltration (experimental technique) for lower third molar (L3M) extractions.

STUDY DESIGN

A randomised, double-blind clinical trial involving 129 L3M extractions was conducted. In the IANB group, an IANB was performed using the conventional approach, followed by a buccal injection in the extraction area. In the infiltration group (INF), an infiltration was performed in the buccal and lingual areas of the lower second molar. A 4% articaine solution was employed in all cases. The main outcome variable was anaesthetic efficacy. Other variables like intraoperative and postoperative pain, onset time and adverse events were also recorded. Descriptive and bivariate analyses of the data were made.

RESULTS

120 patients were randomised. The IANB group showed significantly higher anaesthetic efficacy than the INF group (64.4 vs. 45.8%) (odds ratio = 0.47; 95% confidence interval = 0.22-0.97; p = 0.042). No complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

IANB with additional buccal infiltration is more suitable than the experimental technique for achieving adequate analgesia in L3M extractions. Moreover, the standard method is safe and provides a shorter onset time and lower initial postoperative pain levels.

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.

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.

Efficacy of infiltrative local anesthesia and inferior alveolar nerve block in periapical surgery of lower premolars and molars: A preliminary report

Background

The aims of this study were: 1) compare the amount of anesthesia used with the anesthetic technique; 2) relate the quantity of anesthesia needed with the level of anxiety of the patient; 3) study the relationship between the anesthetic technique and the level of hemostasis; 4) correlate the amount of anesthesia with patient and tooth dependent variables.

Material and Methods

A randomized controlled trial was designed with two parallel groups according to the anesthetic technique: infiltrative local anesthesia (infiltrative group) and inferior alveolar nerve block (block group). The following variables were collected: sex, age, smoking habits, plaque index, symptoms, signs, position of the tooth and amount of anesthesia. Before surgery, all patients were asked to assess their anxiety on a six-item questionnaire, the Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale (APAIS). The analysis of the hemorrhage control of aluminum chloride was judged by the surgeon and two examiners independently and recorded it as: 0 (no hemorrhage control), 1 (slight but apparent intermittent bleeding persisted after application of the material), or 2 (complete hemorrhage control).

Results

Twenty patients were included in this preliminary report. The amount of anesthesia used was lower in block group and in less anxious patients, although these results did not reach statistical significance. A relationship was found between the quantity of anesthesia used and a good hemostasis of the bony crypt before the application of the hemostatic agent (p<.05); and between elderly patients and a lower amount of anesthetic reinforcement (p<.05).

Conclusions

Based on these preliminary results, we can conclude that no statistical significance difference was found between the amount of anesthesia used and the anesthetic technique or the anxiety. A relationship was found between hemostasis of the bony crypt and the quantity of anesthesia used; and between younger patients and a greater amount of anesthetic reinforcement.

Key words:Anesthesia, anxiety, endodontic surgery, hemostasis, hemostatic agents,periradicular surgery.

Impact of maxillary teeth morphology on the failure rate of local anesthesia

Objective:

To investigate the effect of maxillary single and multiple rooted teeth on the success rate of buccal infiltration anesthesia.

Subjects and Methods:

This clinical study was performed by dividing the participants into three groups. Group one included 30 patients with upper anterior teeth, group two 23 patients with upper premolars teeth and group three 39 patients with upper molars for extraction. Onset time of anesthtic action was evaluted by using electronic pulp tester. Pulp testing assessments were carried out immediately before the injection and at the intervals of 2 mins following the injection until the anesthetic success obtains.

Results:

Seventy-nine patients in this study secured anesthetic success within study duration time (10 min). However, there were 13 patients with dental anesthesia failures (3 patients with single rooted teeth and 10 patients with multiple rooted teeth). There were no significant differences in the mean onset time of pulpal anesthesia between the anterior, middle and posterior teeth (P value = 0.449). Clinically, patients with single rooted teeth reported faster dental anesthesia and earlier teeth extraction than patients with multiple rooted teeth.

Conclusion:

This study showed that the single rooted teeth have faster pulpal anesthesia and early extraction than teeth with multiple roots but not statistically significant. Administration of extra local anesthetic cartridge or using intraseptal injection technique can be a solution to overcome the failure of anesthesia in the maxillary posterior teeth.

Anesthetic Efficacy of Gow-Gates, Vazirani-Akinosi, and Mental Incisive Nerve Blocks for Treatment of Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review compared the anesthetic efficacy between Gow-Gates (GG), Vazirani-Akinosi (VA), and mental incisive (MI) nerve blocks (NBs) with inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANBs) in mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis using meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA).

METHODS

Studies were identified from 4 electronic databases up to June 2019. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the anesthetic success rate of GG, VA, and MI NBs with IANBs in mandibular premolars and molars with irreversible pulpitis were included. The quality of selected RCTs was appraised using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. Random-effects meta-analyses of risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and random errors were evaluated by TSA. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

Five RCTs were included; 2 of them were classified as low risk of bias. No significant difference was observed in the anesthesia success rate compared between GG and IA NBs (RR = 1.10; 95% CI, 0.82-1.48; I² = 0%). Similarly, no difference was evident between MINB and IANB (RR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.97-1.36; I² = 0%). Overall, the cumulative success rates for the 3 anesthetic techniques were low. TSA showed a lack of firm evidence for the results of the meta-analysis between GG NB and IANB. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach evaluation showed that the evidence was of moderate quality for GG NB and IANB compared with low quality for MI and IA NBs. Because only 1 study was available comparing VA NB and IANB, a meta-analysis was not performed. The adverse effect associated with MI NB was swelling, whereas it was prolonged numbness for IANB.

CONCLUSIONS

GG NB and IANB showed similar anesthetic efficacy compared with IANB in mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis. However, the success rates for each technique indicate the need for supplemental anesthesia. Further well-designed RCTs evaluating different anesthetic techniques with and without supplemental injection are required to provide stronger evidence.

Safety of buccal infiltration local anaesthesia for dental procedures

AIM

To assess the safety of buccal infiltration local anaesthetic (LA) without additional factor replacement in patients with haemophilia (PWH) and association with clinical experience of the operator.

METHODS

A consecutive sample of participants with mild, moderate and severe haemophilia scheduled to have dental treatment were recruited from a comprehensive care centre in Ireland. Infiltration LA was administered using a standard technique. Safety was defined as any adverse event at time of administration, immediate postoperative, or postoperative period. Clinical experience was dichotomized into fewer or greater than three years clinical experience.

RESULTS

N = 135 buccal infiltration LAs without additional factor replacement were provided to N = 71 participants with mild (n = 20; 28%) and moderate to severe haemophilia (n = 51; 72%). Successful local anaesthesia was achieved in n = 133 cases (99%). No (0%) adverse bleeding events were recorded for any participants at time of administration of LA or during follow-up. Three out of 135 (2.2%) LAs recorded superficial bleeding 30 seconds after administration of LA, all of which resolved within 2 minutes with application of pressure; 4 out of 135 (3%) LAs produced a superficial haematoma at the site of injection no greater than 2 mm all of which resolved at 4 minutes. There were no differences in bleeding rates between clinicians by level of experience (P = 0.435) or by severity of bleeding disorder (P = 1.0).

CONCLUSION

Local anaesthetic is safe to administer via buccal infiltration for people with mild, moderate and severe haemophilia without additional factor cover. This finding holds true regardless of operator experience.

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.

Comparison of Articaine and Lidocaine for Buccal Infiltration After Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block For Intraoperative Pain Control During Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Surgery

In order to compare the efficacy of lidocaine and articaine for pain control during third molar surgery, 160 patients presenting bilateral asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars were selected. They received 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 during inferior alveolar nerve block. In group 1 (n = 80), an infiltrative injection of 0.9 mL of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 was performed in buccal-distal mucosa of the third molar. Group 2 (n = 80) received 0.9 mL of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 in the contralateral side. All procedures were performed at the same visit, by a single operator, in a double-blind and parallel design. The duration of each surgery and the moment when the patient expressed pain were noted. Data were analyzed by nonpaired t test and chi-square test (alpha = 5%). Duration of surgery did not differ (p = .83) between Groups 1 (19.8 ± 2.3 minutes) and 2 (19.7 ± 3.0 minutes). Pain was expressed more in group 1 (26.3%) than in group 2 (10%) (odds ratio = 3.2, p = .0138). In both groups, tooth sectioning was the most painful event (p < .0001). No influence of gender (p = .85) or age (p = .96) was observed in pain response. Buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 showed more efficacy than 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 when used in combination with inferior alveolar nerve block in controlling intraoperative pain related to impacted mandibular third molar surgery.

Insulin Syringe: A Gimmick in Pediatric Dentistry

Aim

The management of pain and anxiety in dentistry encompasses a number of procedural issues, including the delivery of anesthetic solution. One of the most important ways to manage the behavior of children is pain control. Trypanophobia is very common among dental patients and the most important goal of guidelines on behavior guidance for pediatric dental patient is to ease fear and anxiety in dental procedures in children. For the stated reasons, the purpose of the present study was to record child’s pain sensation both objectively and subjectively while receiving dental local anesthesia using conventional syringes and diabetic needles.

Materials and methods

Twenty children of age group 6 to 12 years undergoing routine dental procedures participated in the study. Every child acted as one’s own control, while receiving treatment on the opposite side of the same arch. Each patient was randomly assigned to receive the injection either with conventional syringe or diabetic needle for the first visit, while the injection with the other needle was administered during the second visit. Rating scales were used for objective and subjective evaluations.

Results

Statistical analysis of the measurements were made using Wilcoxon signed U test and Mann-Whitney U test which showed the mean sound, eye, motor (SEM) score difference using insulin syringe. The outcome was statistically significant when compared using the mean ranks between male and female patients with that of control group.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that diabetic syringes exhibit clinical advantage and its use in pediatric dentistry for local anesthetics (LA) infiltration can prove beneficial.

How to cite this article: Kour G, Masih U, Singh C, Srivastava M, Yadav P, Kushwah J. Insulin Syringe: A Gimmick in Pediatric Dentistry. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017;10(4):319-323.

Double versus single cartridge of 4% articaine infiltration into the retro-molar area for lower third molar surgery

Background

There are no studies regarding 4% articaine infiltration injection into the retro-molar area for an impacted lower third molar (LITM) surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of infiltration using 1.7 ml (single cartridge: SC) of 4% articaine versus 3.4 ml (double cartridges: DC) of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in LITM surgery.

Method

This study involved 30 healthy patients with symmetrical LITM. The patients were assigned to receive either a DC or SC of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a local anesthetic for each operation. Onset, duration, profoundness, need for additional anesthetic administration, total volume of anesthetic used, vitality of the tooth, and pain score during operation were recorded.

Results

The DC of 4 % articaine had a significantly higher success rate (83.3%) than did the SC (53.3%; P < 0.05). The duration of soft tissue anesthesia was longer in the DC group. The intra-operative pain was higher in the SC group with a significant (P < 0.05) requirement for a supplementary local anesthetic.

Conclusion

We concluded that using DC for the infiltration injection had a higher success rate, longer duration of anesthesia, less intra-operative pain, and a lower amount of additional anesthesia than SC in the surgical removal of LITM. We recommend that a DC of 4% articaine and a 1:100,000 epinephrine infiltration in the retro-molar region can be an alternative anesthetic for LITM surgery.

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.

Anesthetic Efficacy of 4 % Articaine During Extraction of the Mandibular Posterior Teeth by Using Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block and Buccal Infiltration Techniques

INTRODUCTION

The study was designed to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 4 % articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (A100) in infiltration and inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) anesthetic techniques for the pain control during extraction of the mandibular posterior teeth.

METHODS

This prospective randomized single-blind clinical trial included 100 patients needing extraction of at least two mandibular molars. Patients received either infiltration in the buccal vestibule opposite to the first molar supplemented with lingual infiltration or standard IANB with A100. For assessment of depth of anesthesia obtained by the two anaethetic techniques, presence or absence of pain during the extraction were rated using the visual analog scale.

RESULTS

Fifty patients received infiltration anesthesia and fifty patients were anesthetized by IANB. The success rate of pain-free extraction after buccal infiltration was 94 %, whereas by using IANB with the same anesthetic it was 92 %. No statistical differences were detected in the success rates between the two anesthetic techniques (P = 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

Buccal Infiltration can be considered a good option during extraction of the mandibular molar and premolar teeth of course, with supplemental lingual anesthesia.

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.

Articaine and mepivacaine buccal infiltration in securing mandibular first molar pulp anesthesia following mepivacaine inferior alveolar nerve block: A randomized, double-blind crossover study

Aims:

A crossover double-blind, randomized study was designed to explore the efficacy of 2% mepivacaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline buccal infiltration and 4% articaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline buccal infiltration following 2% mepivacaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for testing pulp anesthesia of mandibular first molar teeth in adult volunteers.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 23 healthy adult volunteers received two regimens with at least 1-week apart; one with 4% articaine buccal infiltration and 2% mepivacaine IANB (articaine regimen) and another with 2% mepivacaine buccal infiltration supplemented to 2% mepivacaine IANB (mepivacaine regimen). Pulp testing of first molar tooth was electronically measured twice at baseline, then at intervals of 2 min for the first 10 min, then every 5 min until 45 min postinjection. Anesthetic success was considered when two consecutive maximal stimulation on pulp testing readings without sensation were obtained within 10 min and continuously sustained for 45 min postinjection.

Results:

In total, the number of no sensations to maximum pulp testing for first molar teeth were significantly higher after articaine regimen than mepivacaine during 45 min postinjection (267 vs. 250 episodes, respectively, P < 0.001), however, both articaine and mepivacaine buccal infiltrations are equally effective in securing anesthetic success for first molar pulp anesthesia when supplemented to mepivacaine IANB injections (P > 0.05). Interestingly, volunteers in the articaine regimen provided faster onset and longer duration (means 2.78 min, 42.22 min, respectively) than mepivacaine regimen (means 4.26 min, 40.74 min, respectively) for first molar pulp anesthesia (P < 0.001).

Conclusions:

Supplementary mepivacaine and articaine buccal infiltrations produced similar successful first molar pulp anesthesia following mepivacaine IANB injections in volunteers. Articaine buccal infiltration produced faster onset and longer duration than mepivacaine buccal infiltration following mepivacaine IANB injections.

Comparison of speed of action and injection discomfort of 4% articaine and 2% mepivacaine for pulpal anesthesia in mandibular teeth: A randomized, double-blind cross-over trial

Objective:

To compare the injection pain and speed of local anesthetic effect induced by tissue infiltration of mepivacaine 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000 versus articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 in securing mandibular first molar pulp anesthesia.

Materials and Methods:

Totally, 25 patients were recruited in a crossover, randomized, double-blind study. Each subject received injections of mepivacaine 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000 as inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) supplemented with either articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 (septocaine) or mepivacaine 2% buccal infiltration (BI) injection on two visits. The time of first numbness to associated lip, tongue and tooth was recorded by asking the participant directly and using electrical pulp tester. Anesthetic success was considered when two consecutive maximal stimulation on pulp testing readings without sensation. The patients rated the pain of infiltration using a 100 mm visual analog scale immediately after receiving each injection. The pain scores were compared using the paired t-test.

Results:

There were significant differences in the meantime of first numbness to associated lip and tooth of volunteers between mepivacaine and articaine BI groups P = 0.03 and 0.002. Volunteers in articaine group recorded earlier lip and teeth numbness than those in mepivacaine group. There were significant differences between the mean pain scores for volunteers in the post IANB and postbuccal injection groups (t-test: P <0.001). Mepivacaine IANB injection was significantly more painful than articaine/mepivacaine buccal injection.

Conclusions:

About 4% articaine was faster than 2% mepivacaine (both with 1:100,000 adrenaline) in anesthetizing the pulps of lower molar teeth after BIs. Earlier lip and teeth numbness were recorded in articaine group. Articaine and mepivacaine BIs were more comfortable than mepivacaine IANB injections.

[Scientific anatomical rationalefor lower teeth local anesthesia]

The article presents clinical recommendation for the choice of local anesthesia techniques in dental treatment of lower teeth based both on original research and literature review. Several localanesthesiatechniques are described for various teeth group, as well as intraosseousdiffusionoflocal anesthetic at various sites of mandible bone and possible anatomical reasons for local anesthesia failures. Theresultsofauthor's anatomical and clinical studies confirm that branches of buccal and lingual nerve can provide lower teeth innervation. Several local anesthesia techniques which may be useful for overcoming the mandibular block failure are proposed.

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

AIM

To compare the anaesthetic efficacy of mandibular second premolar infiltration (SP) with that of mandibular first molar infiltration (FM) in inducing pulpal anaesthesia in the mandibular first molar. To further investigate the mechanisms of action that underlie mandibular infiltration, gender-related differences in the anaesthetic efficacy were also assessed.

METHODOLOGY

A total of 29 adult subjects randomly received two sets of SP and FM injections using one cartridge (1.7 mL) of 4% articaine and 1 : 100 000 adrenaline at two separate appointments. The responses of the teeth were assessed using an electronic pulp tester over a 30-min period. A comparison of the anaesthetic success between the SP and FM infiltration routes was analysed using the McNemar's test. Gender-related differences in the anaesthetic success of infiltration routes were assessed using the Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

For the second premolar and the first and second molar teeth, the success rates of SP were 72.4%, 62.1% and 48.3%, whereas the success rates of FM were 75.9%, 51.7% and 55.1%, respectively. There were no significant differences between the success rates of SP and FM or between the rates obtained for each tooth. Significant gender-related differences were observed for the second premolar (P < 0.01) and the first molar (P < 0.05) using FM. However, a significant difference was observed only for the second premolar using SP (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The differences in the injection sites did not affect the anaesthetic success rates for the mandibular second premolar and molar teeth. However, articaine buccal infiltration produced a higher anaesthetic success rate in the second premolar and first molar teeth of Korean female patients.

Local anesthesia part 2: technical considerations

An earlier paper by Becker and Reed provided an in-depth review of the pharmacology of local anesthetics. This continuing education article will discuss the importance to the safe and effective delivery of these drugs, including needle gauge, traditional and alternative injection techniques, and methods to make injections more comfortable to patients.