Anesthetic efficacy of a combination of 0.5 M mannitol plus 36.8 mg of lidocaine with 18.4 μg epinephrine in maxillary infiltration: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study

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.

A Clinical Study on the Effect of Injection Sites on Efficacy of Anesthesia and Pulpal Blood Flow in Carious Teeth

This randomized clinical trial evaluated the efficiency of maxillary infiltration anesthesia in carious teeth at two different injection sites and their impact on the laser Doppler recordings of pulpal blood flow (PBF) during a caries excavation procedure. The null hypothesis tested was that there are no differences in the efficiency of anesthesia and PBF reduction between maxillary infiltrations at the two injection sites. One hundred twenty patients were divided into three groups according to the degree of carious lesion of their maxillary left central incisors (moderate caries, deep caries, or no caries). Forty patients in each group randomly received infiltrations over the root apex of maxillary left central incisors (site X) or over the midpoint of the line connecting the root apexes of both maxillary left central and lateral incisors (site Y) using 0.9 mL 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline. Teeth were pulp tested at five-minute intervals after injection except for the period of cavity cutting, which was done 12 minutes after injection. The PBF changes after injection were monitored by laser Doppler flowmetry. The observation period in this study was 60 minutes. Success of anesthesia was defined as no or mild pain on cavity cutting by visual analog scale recordings. Deep caries group showed significantly higher baseline PBF ( p<0.05). All groups showed 100% success of anesthesia and similar duration time ( p>0.05). Subgroups that had the injection at site Y showed significantly less reduction of PBF ( p<0.05). Cavity-cutting procedures increased the amplitude of the PBF around the lowest value after injection. Independent of the cavity depth, carious anterior teeth anesthetized by infiltration further from the apex had significantly less reduction on the pulpal blood flow compared with teeth anesthetized by infiltration at the apex.

Effect of three different rotary instrumentation systems on postinstrumentation pain: A randomized clinical trial

Background:

Endodontic instrumentation is liable to cause some postinstrumentation pain (PIP). Rotary endodontic instruments differ in their design, metallurgy, surface treatment, etc.

Aim:

This randomized clinical trial aimed to assess the incidence of PIP after root canal instrumentation with three different rotary endodontic systems which differ in their design, namely, ProTaper, Mtwo, and K3.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 150 patients between the ages of 25 and 50 were chosen for the study. Teeth with asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis due to carious exposure were selected. The patients received local anesthesia by inferior alveolar nerve block. After preparing the access cavity, root canal instrumentation was done with one of the three instruments (n = 50) and closed dressing was given. PIP was assessed every 12 h for 5 days, and tenderness to percussion was analyzed at the end of 1, 3, and 7 days.

Statistical Analysis:

Mann–Whitney U-test to determine significant differences at P < 0.01.

Results:

The PIP and tenderness were less in Mtwo group when compared to ProTaper and K3 groups up to 84 h and 72 h respectively and statistically significant (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between ProTaper and K3 both in PIP and tenderness.

Conclusion:

Rotary endodontic instrumentation causes some degree of PIP and tenderness to percussion. Among the instruments used, Mtwo causes less PIP and tenderness when compared to ProTaper and K3, and there was no difference between ProTaper and K3.

Clinical Relevance:

PIP is highly subjective and may vary among different subjects. The apical (3 mm) taper of ProTaper was 0.08 followed by a smaller taper, whereas, the other two files were of a constant 0.06 taper, which means there could have been a greater apical extrusion and therefore more PIP. Despite, the mean of the age was similar, there could have been a difference in the size of the canal and therefore a difference in apical extrusion and PIP.