Hemodynamic changes associated with a novel concentration of lidocaine HCl for impacted lower third molar surgery

Changes in Blood Pressure and Pulse Rate of Patients without Systemic Diseases Following the Injection of 2% Lidocaine Plus Epinephrine 1:80000 in an Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block - A Prospective Study

Introduction

An inferior alveolar nerve block is dental anesthesia produced by the local injection of lidocaine plus epinephrine; however, its administration could cause cardiovascular side effects. We aimed to assess the changes in blood pressure and pulse rate following the injection of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:80000 for an inferior alveolar nerve block.

Materials and Methods

Seventy-one patients without any systemic disease were enrolled in this study. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and pulse rate were measured using an automatic digital blood pressure monitor in four stages as follows: at the rest time (Stage 1), prior to injection (Stage 2), immediately after injection (Stage 3), and 10 min after the administration of anesthetic agents (Stage 4). All injections and measurements were carried out by a single operator to minimize the variability.

Results

SBP and DBP in all stages were within the normal range (lower than 130 and 80 mmHg, respectively), and none of the patients showed evidence of arterial hypertension. Although the pulse rate increased significantly at Stages 2, 3, and 4 compared with Stage 1 (P < 0.05), no evidence of bradycardia or tachycardia was seen.

Discussion

Local anesthesia with 2% lidocaine plus epinephrine 1:80000 for an inferior alveolar nerve block would be safe for patients without any systemic diseases.

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.

Comparative evaluation of the efficacy, safety, and hemostatic effect of 2% lidocaine with various concentrations of epinephrine

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the changes in mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR), and the anesthetic and hemostatic effects, after injection of 2% lidocaine containing various concentrations of epinephrine in rats and mice to determine the appropriate concentration of epinephrine in various anesthetic mixtures.

METHODS

Rats and mice were randomly allocated to experimental groups: 2% lidocaine without epinephrine (L0), 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:200,000 (L200), 1:100,000 (L100), and 1:80,000 (L80). Changes in MAP and HR after administration of the anesthetic mixture were evaluated using a physiological recording system in rats. Onset and duration of local anesthesia was evaluated by pricking the hind paw of mice. A spectrophotometric hemoglobin assay was used to quantify the hemostatic effect.

RESULTS

MAP increased in response to epinephrine in a dose-dependent manner; it was significantly higher in the L80 group than in the L0 group at 5 min post-administration. The HR was relatively lower in the L0 group than in the L80 group. The time required for onset of action was < 1 min in all evaluation groups. The duration of action and hemostatic effect of the local anesthetic were significantly better in the L200, L100, and L80 groups than in the L0 group.

CONCLUSION

L200 demonstrated relatively stable MAP and HR values with satisfactory efficacy and hemostatic effect. L200 might be a better local anesthetic for dental patients in terms of anesthetic efficacy and safety.

Dental anesthesia for patients with allergic reactions to lidocaine: two case reports

Lidocaine, a local anesthetic commonly used in dental treatments, is capable of causing allergies or adverse effects similar to allergic reactions. However, the frequency of such occurrences in actual clinical settings is very rare, and even clinical tests on patients with known allergies to local anesthetics may often show negative results. When adverse effects, such as allergy to lidocaine, are involved, patients can be treated by testing other local anesthetics and choosing a local anesthetic without any adverse effects, or by performing dental treatment under general anesthesia in cases in which no local anesthetic without adverse effects is available. Along with a literature review, the authors of the present study report on two cases of patients who tested positive on allergy skin tests for lidocaine and bupivacaine and subsequently underwent successful dental treatments with either general anesthesia or a different local anesthetic.

Hemodynamic changes and pain perception-related anxiety after experiencing an impacted-tooth removal: clinical practice outcome

BACKGROUND

Dental fear is usually associated with hemodynamic changes. Fear of pain during the surgical removal of a lower impacted third molar might cause patients anxiety, thereby leading to avoidance of any future dental therapy. This study aimed to determine the effect of experiencing a surgical impacted-tooth removal on the pain perception-related anxiety and hemodynamic status.

METHODS

Twenty-seven healthy patients aged 15-30 years (mean age, 24 years), for whom surgical removal of bilateral lower third molars was advised, were included. This prospective, randomized, controlled, split-mouth study involved operations on both sides of the mandibular arch, with a 1-month washout period in between. Blood pressure and heart rate were measured before the surgical procedure, during and after the injection, preoperatively, and postoperatively. Pain perception was evaluated using a 100-mm visual analog scale during the injection, preoperatively, and postoperatively after the numbness disappeared. Differences in the blood pressure, heart rate, and pain perception between the two appointments were analyzed using the paired t-test. For all statistical analyses, SPSS version 11.5 was used.

RESULTS

The mean pain perception values during the injection and preoperatively showed no significant differences between the two appointments (P > 0.05); however, significant differences in the blood pressure and heart rate were noted before the surgical procedure; preoperatively, the blood pressure alone showed a significant difference (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant decrease in the blood pressure and heart rate preoperatively; hence, experiencing a surgical impacted-tooth removal can reduce the subsequent preoperative anxiety in healthy patients.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of 2% lidocaine HCl with different epinephrine concentration for local anesthesia in participants undergoing surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, crossover, phase IV trial

BACKGROUND

The most commonly impacted tooth is the third molar. An impacted third molar can ultimately cause acute pain, infection, tumors, cysts, caries, periodontal disease, and loss of adjacent teeth. Local anesthesia is employed for removing the third molar. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 or 1:200,000 epinephrine for surgical extraction of bilateral impacted mandibular third molars.

METHODS

Sixty-five healthy participants underwent surgical extraction of bilateral impacted mandibular third molars in 2 separate visits while under local anesthesia with 2% lidocaine with different epinephrine concentration (1:80,000 or 1:200,000) in a double-blind, randomized, crossover trial. Visual analog scale pain scores obtained immediately after surgical extraction were primarily evaluated for the 2 groups receiving different epinephrine concentrations. Visual analog scale pain scores were obtained 2, 4, and 6 hours after administering an anesthetic. Onset and duration of analgesia, onset of pain, intraoperative bleeding, operator's and participant's overall satisfaction, drug dosage, and hemodynamic parameters were evaluated for the 2 groups.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in any measurements except hemodynamic factors (P >.05). Changes in systolic blood pressure and heart rate following anesthetic administration were significantly greater in the group receiving 1:80,000 epinephrine than in that receiving 1:200,000 epinephrine (P ≤.01).

CONCLUSION

The difference in epinephrine concentration between 1:80,000 and 1:200,000 in 2% lidocaine liquid does not affect the medical efficacy of the anesthetic. Furthermore, 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine has better safety with regard to hemodynamic parameters than 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine. Therefore, we suggest using 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine rather than 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine for surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars in hemodynamically unstable patients.

4% lidocaine versus 4% articaine for inferior alveolar nerve block in impacted lower third molar surgery

Background

No study has compared lidocaine with articaine, each at a concentration of 4% and combined with epinephrine. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 4% lidocaine with that of 4% articaine, with a concentration of 1:100,000 epinephrine added to each, in an inferior alveolar nerve block for surgery on impacted lower third molars.

Method

This study was conducted at the Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University in Bangkok, Thailand. The randomized, single-blind, comparative split-mouth study was carried out in patients with symmetrically impacted lower third molars, as identified on panoramic radiographs. Each patient underwent surgery for the removal of the lower third molars by the same surgeon under local anesthesia at two separate visits, 3 weeks apart. The onset and duration of local anesthesia, intra-operative pain, surgical duration, and number of additional anesthetics administered were recorded.

Results

The subjective and objective onset of action for the local anesthetics showed statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). However, the intra-operative pain, surgical duration, duration of local anesthesia, and number of additional anesthetics administered did not show statistically significant differences.

Conclusion

The use of 4% articaine for the inferior alveolar nerve block was clinically more effective in the onset of subjective and objective anesthesia as compared with the use of 4% lidocaine. Based on the pain scores from the visual analogue scale, 4% lidocaine provided more analgesia during the procedure, and patients noted less intra-operative pain than with 4% articaine; however, the difference was not clinically significant.