The Effects of a 2-Stage Injection Technique on Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Injection Pain

Pulpal anesthesia of maxillary first molars using 4% articaine infiltration in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL (one cartridge) and 3.6 mL (two cartridges) buccal infiltration and buccal plus palatal infiltration of 4% articaine in maxillary first molar teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This randomized single-blind clinical trial was conducted on 45 patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis of maxillary first molars (Trial Registration No: IRCT2015011020238N2_2015). The patients were randomly divided into three groups (n = 15) for buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL articaine plus 1:100,000 epinephrine (group 1), buccal infiltration of 3.6 mL articaine (group 2), and buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL articaine plus palatal infiltration of 0.5 mL articaine (group 3). The pain intensity was measured by the Heft-Parker visual analog scale (VAS) during injection and during access cavity preparation. No pain or mild pain during treatment was considered as successful anesthesia. Data were analyzed by the Tukey's post hoc test.

RESULTS

The three groups had a significant difference in frequency of the perceived pain during injection (P = 0.01). A higher volume of 4% articaine and injection of articaine in both buccal and palatal sides provided a significantly higher anesthesia success rate (P = 0.049 and P < 0.01, respectively). The highest success rate was recorded in group 3 (93.33%) followed by group 2 (80%) and then group 1 (53.33%).

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing the administered volume of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and addition of palatal infiltration to buccal infiltration of articaine can significantly increase the success of anesthesia in maxillary first molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Achieving deep anesthesia in teeth with irreversible pulpitis is a critical parameter in management of patients who are in urgent need of root canal treatments.

Does a New Modification of the Two-Step Injection Technique for Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Reduce Pain Compared to the Conventional Technique? A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background. The ability to control pain is an essential part of dental procedures and the need for optimal pain control and reduction of discomfort is the primary concern of every dentist. This study aims to compare the pain and vital signs during inferior alveolar nerve block between conventional and a new modification of the two-step injection techniques. Methods. In this institutional single-blind randomized clinical trial, attendees of dental school at Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences from February to May 2022 were included. Inclusion criteria were 20–60 years old and healthy (ASA1) individuals who were willing to participate in this study. Individuals who were taking medications affecting their understanding of pain and patients with active infections at the injection site were excluded. These individuals were divided into two groups. First, superficial anesthesia was performed and afterward, conventional and two-step injection techniques were performed. For the two-step injection method, 6 mm of the needle was injected into the mucosa and one-third of the local anesthetic solution was released from the computer-controlled injection toolkit. Afterward, a 25 mm 30-gauge needle was reinserted into the previous hole delivering the remaining local anesthetic. The pain during injection was measured by a patient-reported numerical rating scale (NRS). Moreover, vital signs were monitored immediately before and after the injection. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, Mann–Whitney U test, independent T-test, and Fisher’s exact χ2 test were performed for statistical analysis (α = 0.05). Results. This study involved 32 adults aged between 20 and 50 years old with 1 : 1 female/male sex distribution. The pain score was significantly higher in the conventional injection technique compared to the two-step injection technique in all sex and age groups. There were no significant differences in vital signs between the conventional and two-step injection techniques. There was no significant difference in the mean pain scores of females and males, regardless of their injection techniques. Conclusion. Utilizing the two-step injection technique in patients for inferior alveolar block reduces pain during injection without altering patients’ vital signs significantly. This trial is registered with IRCT20220106053646N1.

A Comparative Study to Evaluate the Anesthetic Efficacy of Buffered Versus Non-buffered 2% Lidocaine During Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy, safety, and acceptability of buffered lidocaine (8.4% sodium bicarbonate and 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline) versus non-buffered lidocaine (2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline) during inferior alveolar nerve block.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty patients who required bilateral extractions in a single arch were included in this study. One hundred extractions were carried out, and all of the patients had nerve blocks during the procedure. We also took note of the patient's pain level as measured on a visual analog scale, as well as the start of the action, duration of postoperative analgesia, and occurrence of any problems. The duration of anesthesia was assessed by the feeling of numbness and the first sign of pain.

RESULT

All the patients in both study groups reported subjective numbness of the lips and tongue. The depth of anesthesia was evaluated by pain and comfort during the procedure with a visual analog scale and showed no significant difference between the two groups. The onset of action for the pterygomandibular nerve block was 1.240.31 minutes (buffered) and 1.710.51 minutes (non-buffered). When compared, the duration of anesthesia was 327.18102.98 minutes (buffered) and 129.0826.85 minutes (non-buffered).

CONCLUSION

This study concludes that the buffered solution has a faster onset of action than the non-buffered solution. Both solutions exhibit similar intraoperative efficacy. The duration of postoperative anesthesia was prolonged with buffering. Buffering also reduced pain scores during the early postoperative period.

Nitrous Oxide/Oxygen Effect on IANB Injection Pain and Mandibular Pulpal Anesthesia in Asymptomatic Subjects

The inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) does not always result in successful pulpal anesthesia. Nitrous oxide may increase the success of the IANB. The purpose of this investigation was to study the effect of nitrous oxide/oxygen (N2O/O2) on IANB injection pain and mandibular pulpal anesthesia in asymptomatic subjects. One hundred five asymptomatic subjects received an IANB after the administration of N2O/O2 or room air/oxygen (air/O2) at 2 separate appointments. After the IANB, subjects rated their level of pain for each phase of the injection (needle insertion, needle placement, and solution deposition) using a Heft Parker visual analog scale. Pulpal anesthesia was evaluated with an electric pulp tester for 60 minutes. The mean pain rating for all 3 injection phases showed a statistically significant reduction in pain when N2O/O2 was used compared with Air/O2 (P < .05). Odds ratios demonstrated a statistically significant increase in IANB success for the N2O/O2 group compared with the air/O2 group. N2O/O2 administration statistically decreased pain for all 3 injection phases of the IANB. In addition, nitrous oxide statistically increased the likelihood of pulpal anesthesia for posterior mandibular teeth. However, the incidence of pulpal anesthesia was not 100%.

Comparison of Patient Comfort During the First Stage of Conventional Versus Modified Two-Stage Inferior Alveolar Nerve Blocks in Pediatric Patients

Our aim was to compare the comfort of pediatric patients during the first stage of the conventional 2-stage inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) versus the modified 2-stage IANB. This was a parallel group, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Pediatric patients meeting the inclusion criteria were randomly allocated to 1 of the 2 groups receiving IANB, group 1 (31 subjects) utilized a conventional 2-stage technique, and group 2 (33 subjects) utilized a modified 2-stage approach. Patient comfort was assessed indirectly by 2 observers using the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scale during the first stage of the injections. FLACC score data between the 2 groups were analyzed using the chi-square test, and interobserver reliability was measured using kappa statistics. During the first stage of the injections, lower FLACC scores of 0 indicating a relaxed/comfortable patient experience were found in 57.6% of group 2 subjects compared with only 25.8% group 1 subjects, which was a statistically significant difference (p-value .013). Interobserver reliability assessed using kappa coefficients (κ = 0.812) indicated excellent agreement. FLACC scores for the pediatric patients during the first stage of the modified 2-stage IANB technique were significantly lower than during the first stage of the conventional 2-stage IANB technique.

The effect of pre-anesthesia with a needle-free system versus topical anesthesia on injection pain of the inferior alveolar nerve block: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of pain control between a needle-free system and topical anesthesia applied prior to inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study was designed as a randomized controlled cross-over clinical study on 60 children (aged 6 to 12 years) requiring dental treatment with IANB in bilateral mandibular molars. As pre-anesthesia, topical anesthesia (TA) was applied on one side and the Comfort-in™ injection system (CIS) on the other side in two separate sessions before IANB. The injection pain during IANB, at both the needle insertion and solution deposition phases, was analyzed using the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (PRS) and the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability Scale (FLACC). The data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Spearman correlation, and Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant differences between TA and CIS in subjective and objective pain evaluations during both the needle insertion and solution deposition. The use of a needle-free system in pre-anesthesia yielded a significant decrease in subjective and objective pain scores (p < 0.001). No statistical difference was found between TA and CIS in terms of patient preference, but patient preference for CIS was significantly higher in older patients (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

It was determined that the use of a needle-free system in pre-anesthesia yielded a decrease in injection pain of IANB.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Pediatric dentists should be aware of the new injection system in order to decrease the level of injection pain.

Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Injection Pain Using a Computer-Controlled Local Anesthetic Device (CCLAD): A Prospective, Randomized Study

There is evidence that the Computer-Controlled Local Anesthetic Device (CCLAD) decreases the pain of oral injections. The purpose of this study was to evaluate injection pain of the inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) using the CCLAD in an upright position versus a supine position. Additionally, we evaluated solution deposition pain with the CCLAD when compared to previous studies using a traditional syringe. One hundred ten asymptomatic subjects were randomly given IANBs using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine while in an upright sitting position and supine position, at 2 different appointments, spaced at least 2 weeks apart. Each subject rated the pain for needle insertion, needle placement, and solution deposition on a Heft-Parker visual analogue scale. Pain ratings were compared between the upright and supine positions using a repeated-measures analysis of variance with post hoc testing using the Tukey-Kramer procedure. Moderate to severe pain was reported by 10% to 13% of the patients for needle insertion, 74% to 75% for full needle placement, and 8% to 10% for solution deposition. There was no significant difference between groups for phases of the injection. When comparing the injection phases within the groups, the needle placement phase of the injection was statistically more painful than both the needle insertion phase and solution deposition phase ( p = .0001). Using the CCLAD, IANB injection pain of the supine and upright positions was not statistically different. Needle placement was the most painful phase of the injection. Solution deposition pain was less with the CCLAD when compared to other studies of the IANB using a traditional syringe.

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.

Infiltrative local anesthesia with articaine is equally as effective as inferior alveolar nerve block with lidocaine for the removal of erupted molars

AIM

The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline given as buccal and lingual infiltration in adult patients undergoing erupted mandibular first and second molar teeth extraction versus inferior alveolar nerve block technique using 2% lignocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 100 patients undergoing extraction of mandibular posterior teeth were divided into two equally matched groups for the study, out of which 50 patients were given 4% articaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline as buccal and lingual infiltration and 50 patients were given 2% lignocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline using classic direct inferior alveolar nerve block with lingual and buccal nerve block. Efficacy of anesthesia was determined using a numeric analog scale (NAS) ranging from 0 indicating no pain to 10 indicating the worst pain imaginable. The NAS was taken by a different operator to avoid bias.

RESULTS

The pain scores in both groups were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test, and a p value of 0.338 was obtained which is not statistically significant. Hence, no significant difference in the pain score was established between both groups. The adverse effects of both the local anesthetics if any were noted.

CONCLUSION

From this study, we concluded that the use of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline is as effective as inferior alveolar nerve block with lignocaine but without the risk of attendant adverse effects of inferior alveolar nerve block technique.

Evaluation of 2-Stage Injection Technique in Children

Effective pain control during local anesthetic injection is the cornerstone of behavior guidance in pediatric dentistry. The aim of this study was to evaluate the practical efficacy of a 2-stage injection technique in reducing injection pain in children. This was a split-mouth, randomized controlled crossover trial. One hundred cooperative children aged 7 to 13 years in need of bilateral local anesthetic injections (inferior alveolar nerve block, posterior superior alveolar nerve block, or maxillary and mandibular buccal infiltrations) for restorative, endodontic, and extraction treatments were recruited for the study. Children were randomly allocated to receive either the 2-stage injection technique or conventional technique at the first appointment. The other technique was used at the successive visit after 1 week. Subjective and objective evaluation of pain was done using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale (FPS) and Sound Eye Motor (SEM) scale, respectively. The comparison of pain scores was done by Wilcoxon sign-rank test. Both FPS and SEM scores were significantly lower when the 2-stage injection technique of local anesthetic nerve block/infiltration was used compared with the conventional technique. The 2-stage injection technique is a simple and effective means of reducing injection pain in children.

The Effect of 2 Injection Speeds on Local Anesthetic Discomfort During Inferior Alveolar Nerve Blocks

This randomized double-blind crossover trial investigated the discomfort associated with 2 injection speeds, low (60 seconds) and slow (100 seconds), during inferior alveolar nerve block by using 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine. Three phases were considered: (a) mucosa perforation, (b) needle insertion, and (c) solution injection. Thirty-two healthy adult volunteers needing bilateral inferior alveolar nerve blocks at least 1 week apart were enrolled in the present study. The anesthetic procedure discomfort was recorded by volunteers on a 10-cm visual analog scale in each phase for both injection speeds. Comparison between the 2 anesthesia speeds in each phase was performed by paired t test. Results showed no statistically significant difference between injection speeds regarding perforation (P = .1016), needle placement (P = .0584), or speed injection (P = .1806). The discomfort in all phases was considered low. We concluded that the 2 injection speeds tested did not affect the volunteers' pain perception during inferior alveolar nerve blocks.

Does the combination of 3% mepivacaine plain plus 2% lidocaine with epinephrine improve anesthesia and reduce the pain of anesthetic injection for the inferior alveolar nerve block? A prospective, randomized, double-blind study

INTRODUCTION

In theory, using 3% mepivacaine initially for an inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block would decrease the pain of injection, provide faster onset, and increase anesthetic success. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with a combination of 3% mepivacaine/2% lidocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) versus a combination of 2% lidocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine)/2% lidocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) in IAN blocks. Injection pain was also studied.

METHODS

One hundred asymptomatic subjects were randomly given a combination of a 1-cartridge volume of 3% mepivacaine plus a 1-cartridge volume of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and a combination of a 1-cartridge volume of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine plus a 1-cartridge volume of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for the IAN block at 2 separate appointments. Subjects rated the pain of injection. The molars, premolars, and incisors were tested with an electric pulp tester in 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes. Anesthetic success was defined as the subject achieving 2 consecutive 80 readings within 15 minutes after completion of the IAN blocks and sustaining the 80 reading for 60 minutes.

RESULTS

Success was not significantly different (P > .05) between the 2 combinations. No statistical differences in injection pain or onset times were found.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of 3% mepivacaine plus 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was equivalent to the combination of 2 cartridges of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in terms of injection pain, onset time, and pulpal anesthetic success for the IAN block.

Advanced techniques and armamentarium for dental local anesthesia

Computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery (C-CLAD) devices and systems for intraosseous (IO) injection are important additions to the dental anesthesia armamentarium. C-CLAD using slow infusion rates can significantly reduce the discomfort of local anesthetic infusion, especially in palatal tissues, and facilitate palatal approaches to pulpal nerve block that find special use in cosmetic dentistry, periodontal therapy, and pediatric dentistry. Anesthesia of single teeth can be obtained using either C-CLAD intraligamentary injections or IO injections. Supplementary IO anesthesia is particularly suited for providing effective pain control of teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind study of the anesthetic efficacy of sodium bicarbonate buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve blocks

The authors, using a crossover design, randomly administered, in a double-blind manner, inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) blocks using a buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine/sodium bicarbonate formulation and an unbuffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine formulation at 2 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. An electric pulp tester was used in 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes to test for anesthesia of the first and second molars, premolars, and lateral and central incisors. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained within 15 minutes, and the 80 reading was continuously sustained for 60 minutes. For the buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine/sodium bicarbonate formulation, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 10-71%. For the unbuffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine formulation, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 10-72%. No significant differences between the 2 anesthetic formulations were noted. The buffered lidocaine formulation did not statistically result in faster onset of pulpal anesthesia or less pain during injection than did the unbuffered lidocaine formulation. We concluded that buffering a 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine with sodium bicarbonate, as was formulated in the current study, did not statistically increase anesthetic success, provide faster onset, or result in less pain of injection when compared with unbuffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for an IAN block.

Injection pain of the inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with irreversible pulpitis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this retrospective analysis was to determine the pain associated with needle insertion, placement, and solution deposition for the conventional inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block in patients with irreversible pulpitis.

STUDY DESIGN

One hundred two emergency patients with irreversible pulpitis received IAN block injections using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. The patients recorded pain of the 3 injection stages on a Heft-Parker visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Moderate-to-severe pain may occur 57% to 89% of the time with the IAN block. Needle placement was significantly more painful than needle insertion for men and significantly more painful than either insertion or deposition for women (P < .03). There was no statistical difference between the pain for men or women with respect to needle insertion, placement, or deposition pain (P > .05). Deposition of 0.2 to 0.4 mL anesthetic during placement did not significantly reduce placement pain for either gender (P = .753).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, 57% to 89% of patients presenting with irreversible pulpitis have the potential for moderate to severe pain with the IAN block.