Local Anesthetic Usage Among Dentists: German and International Data

Survey investigation of articaine use in the United States

BACKGROUND

Local anesthesia is an essential component of dentistry, but there is limited quantifiable understanding of what techniques and local anesthetic solutions are used by practicing dentists. Use of the local anesthetic articaine has been highly debated in dentistry regarding its efficacy and risks for paresthesia. The aims of this study were to expand the knowledge of local anesthesia practices of dentists in the United States through a large-scale survey and associate potential influencing factors regarding articaine use specifically.

METHODS

The 23-item survey was sent to 10,340 practicing dentists in the United States, gathering demographic data and local anesthesia approaches and concerns. Statistical analysis consisted of descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 1,128 dentists completed the survey. Previous experience with articaine was reported by 97.6% of respondents, with 3.3% no longer using articaine. Sixty percent of respondents indicated using articaine for most local anesthetic injections administered. Multivariable regression analysis found those reporting to use articaine for all local anesthetic injections involving vasoconstrictors were more likely to be male (odds ratio, 1.59; P = .002) or general dentists (odds ratio, 1.63; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Articaine has a perceived benefit to practitioners as most respondents reported using articaine as their primary local anesthetic. A practitioner's sex and type were found to affect the profile of use of articaine.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Assembling evidenced-based local anesthesia practices would be beneficial to ensure US practitioners are more standardized in administering local anesthetics, particularly articaine, in the safest and most efficacious way.

Knowledge, Practice and Self-Reported Confidence Level of Croatian Dentists in the Use of Local Anesthesia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Objectives: To provide safe and effective local anesthesia, dentists must have knowledge of neuroanatomy, anesthesia agents, techniques, equipment, and proper use of local anesthetics. This study aims to explore the knowledge, practices, and confidence regarding local anesthetics and anesthetic techniques in dentistry. Material and Methods: The online cross-sectional questionnaire was conducted via social media, and yielded 441 responses from across the country (69.8% women and 30.2% men; 70.7% general dentists; and 29.3 specialists). The data collected included sociodemographic characteristics, knowledge, and practices pertaining to the usage of local anesthesia. The questionnaire also documents their self-assessed confidence level in applying different local anesthetic techniques and experiences with adverse reactions. The obtained data were processed by description and using a generalized linear model for regression. Results: The respondents had a median knowledge score of 6 out of a possible 14 points regarding local anesthetics in dental medicine, and their median self-confidence level in the successful application of various techniques of local anesthesia was 54 out of a maximum of 85 points. The results showed that a higher knowledge level was associated with the female gender (OR 1.83, CI 1.13-2.98, p = 0.014) and specialization in oral surgery (OR 7.04, CI 1.71-29.07, p = 0.007). In contrast, a lack of confidence in using various local anesthetic techniques was also associated with the female gender (OR 0.63, CI 0.41-0.99, p = 0.047) and specialization in orthodontics (OR 0.16, CI 0.03-0.88, p = 0.035). Of the respondents, 81.4% (n = 371) experienced a local complication, and 42.2% (n = 186) experienced a systemic complication during local anesthesia. The complications experienced cannot be associated with a lack of knowledge or self-confidence (p > 0.05). The majority of respondents (364 of the 441 total-82.5%) expressed interest in receiving further education on the topic of local anesthesia. Conclusions: The research results show that the dentists involved in the study have poor knowledge of local anesthetics and moderate self-reported confidence levels in using various local anesthetic techniques. Moreover, dentists' self-confidence in applying different techniques of local anesthesia is not related to their knowledge. Therefore, it would be necessary for dentists to undergo a continuing dental education program that enables them to enhance their skills and knowledge in local anesthesia.

Effect of dentine site on resin and cement adaptation tested using X-ray and electron microscopy to evaluate bond durability and adhesive interfaces

Glass ionomer (GI) cements and self-etch (SE) or universal adhesives after etching (ER) adapt variably with dentine. Dentine characteristics vary with depth (deep/shallow), location (central/peripheral), and microscopic site (intertubular/peritubular). To directly compare adhesion to dentine, non-destructive imaging and testing are required. Here, GI, ER, and SE adapted at different dentine depths, locations, and sites were investigated using micro-CT, xenon plasma focused ion beam scanning electron microscopy (Xe PFIB-SEM), and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS). Extracted molars were prepared to deep or shallow slices and treated with the three adhesives. Micro-CT was used to compare changes to air volume gaps, following thermocycling, and statistically analysed using a quantile regression model and Fisher's exact test. The three adhesives performed similarly across dentine depths and locations, yet no change or overall increases and decreases in gaps at all dentine depths and locations were measured. The Xe PFIB-SEM-milled dentine-adhesive interfaces facilitated high-resolution characterization, and element profiling revealed variations across the tooth-material interfaces. Dentine depth and location had no impact on adhesive durability, although microscopic differences were observed. Here we demonstrate how micro-CT and Xe PFIB-SEM can be used to compare variable dental materials without complex multi-stage specimen preparation to minimize artefacts.

Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Success of 2% Mepivacaine versus 4% Articaine in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis in Mandibular Molars: A Randomized Double-Blind Single-Centre Clinical Trial

AIM

To assess inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) success of 2% mepivacaine (Scandonest 2%, Septodont, France) and 4% articaine (Septanest 4%, Septodont) in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP) in mandibular molars during access cavity preparation and instrumentation.

METHODOLOGY

Three hundred and thirty patients with moderate-to-severe pain in mandibular molars with SIP randomly received either 3.6 mL 2% mepivacaine hydrochloride with 1:100 000 adrenalin or 3.4mL 4% articaine hydrochloride with 1:100 000 adrenalin (n=165). Intraoperative pain (IOP) intensity was assessed during access cavity preparation and canal instrumentation using 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS). Overall success was considered if the patient felt no-to-mild pain without the need of supplemental anaesthesia throughout treatment; the incidence of need for supplemental anaesthesia was also recorded. Data were statistically analyzed using Mann Whitney U and Chi² (χ² ) tests. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of anaesthetic failure was calculated. The effect of predisposing factors on outcome variables was assessed using multivariable regression analyses. None of the participants reported any adverse effects.

RESULTS

Baseline variables were balanced between groups (p>0.05). The IOP intensity during access cavity preparation and canal instrumentation was similar for both groups (p>0.05). IOP intensity was associated with preoperative pain intensity and tooth type (p<0.05). Overall anaesthetic success rate was 35.8% for mepivacaine and 41.2% for articaine (p>0.05) with a relative risk of failure [95%CI] 1.09 [0.92, 1.30]. The need for supplemental anaesthesia occurred 43.6% and 38.2% with mepivacaine and articaine respectively (p>0.05; RR [95%CI]: 1.14 [0.88, 1.48]). Preoperative pain level and age were associated with the need for supplemental anaesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

2% mepivacaine and 4% articaine demonstrate similar IANB success rates for mandibular molars with SIP. Intraoperative pain experience during endodontic treatment can be associated with preoperative pain, tooth type and age.