Intraosseous injection as an adjunct to conventional local anesthetic techniques: A clinical study

Enhancing pediatric endodontic treatment: Intraosseous anesthesia with computer-controlled delivery system

Background: Pain control during endodontic treatment is essential but challenging, particularly in pediatric dentistry. Intraosseous anesthesia (IO) ensures adequate areas are anesthetized for endodontic treatment of the primary tooth with only a single injection site and a small amount of anesthetic solution required. Anesthesia should be delivered slowly to enhance the success rate, minimize pain and, for the IO technique, minimize risk of osteonecrosis. The IO anesthesia delivery system that meets such criteria is computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery (CCLAD). Purpose: To describe the enhancement of pediatric endodontic treatment with minimum risk intraosseous anesthesia using CCLAD. Case: An 8-year-old male patient came to the Pediatric Dentistry Clinic at Padjadjaran University Dental Hospital reporting pain on the lower right second molar deciduous teeth, indicated for vital pulpectomy. Case Management: The procedure of vital pulpectomy was done under local anesthesia. Patient was given intraosseous injection with CCLAD prior to opening access. The point of injection was at two mm apical from distal interdental papillae of the lower right second molar deciduous teeth. The patient remained calm throughout the local injection and vital pulpectomy procedure. Conclusion: Intraosseous anesthesia is beneficial when used for pain control during pediatric endodontic therapy. The use of CCLAD gives comfort to the patient while lowering the risk of necrotizing alveolar bone.

Anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lignocaine in root canal treatment of teeth with molar incisor hypomineralization

CONTEXT

Inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) is considered the cornerstone in achieving anesthesia for mandibular molars. However, failure of routine lignocaine IANB to achieve profound anesthesia of the pulp has been reported in patients with molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH). Articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 has proven to provide total pain relief during most dental procedures.

AIMS

This study aimed to assess and compare the pain perception level in children using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) during root canal treatment after administering 4% articaine buccal infiltration (BI), 4% articaine IANB, and 2% lignocaine IANB.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Twenty-seven children aged 8-12 years, requiring root canal treatment of mandibular first permanent molars with MIH were randomly allocated into three groups - 4% articaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) BI, 4% articaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) IANB, and 2% lignocaine IANB. The efficacy of the anesthetic was determined by rating the pain perception of the child using a VAS.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

The scores marked by the children on the VAS were recorded and were statistically analyzed. Data were entered into Microsoft excel data sheet and were analyzed using SPSS for Windows version 17.0.

RESULTS

Patients anesthetized with 4% articaine IANB presented lesser pain scores compared to IANB with 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine BI on access opening and instrumentation of the root canals.

CONCLUSION

4% articaine IANB has better anesthetic efficacy than 4% articaine BI and 2% lignocaine IANB in anesthetising mandibular first permanent molars with MIH.

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.

Clinical evaluation of efficacy of transcortical anesthesia for the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars: a randomized controlled trial

Background

This study aimed to compare the pain levels during anesthesia and the efficacy of the QuickSleeper intraosseous (IO) injection system and conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in impacted mandibular third molar surgery.

Methods

This prospective randomized clinical trial included 30 patients (16 women, 14 men) with bilateral symmetrical impacted mandibular third molars. Thirty subjects randomly received either the IO injection or conventional IANB at two successive appointments. A split-mouth design was used in which each patient underwent treatment of a tooth with one of the techniques and treatment of the homologous contralateral tooth with the other technique. The subjects received 1.8 mL of 2% articaine. Subjects' demographic data, pain levels during anesthesia induction, tooth extractions, and mouth opening on postoperative first, third, and seventh days were recorded. Pain assessment ratings were recorded using the 100-mm visual analog scale. The latency and duration of the anesthetic effect, complications, and operation duration were also analyzed in this study. The duration of anesthetic effect was considered using an electric pulp test and by probing the soft tissue with an explorer.

Results

Thirty patients aged between 18 and 47 years (mean age, 25 years) were included in this study. The IO injection was significantly less painful with lesser soft tissue numbness and quicker onset of anesthesia and lingual mucosa anesthesia with single needle penetration than conventional IANB. Moreover, 19 out of 30 patients (63%) preferred transcortical anesthesia. Mouth opening on postoperative first day was significantly better with intraosseous injection than with conventional IANB (P = 0.013).

Conclusion

The IO anesthetic system is a good alternative to IANB for extraction of the third molar with less pain during anesthesia induction and sufficient depth of anesthesia for the surgical procedure.

Efficacy of Intraosseous Local Anesthesia for Restorative Procedures in Molar Incisor Hypomineralization-Affected Teeth in Children

Background

Treatment of teeth affected with molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH) in young patients is challenging due to chronic subclinical pulpal inflammation caused by porous enamel and exposed dentin. Hypersensitivity of the teeth and difficulty in achieving local anesthesia due to altered nerve potential affects the successful completion of the treatment.

Aim

The aim of the study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of the intraosseous (IO) anesthetic technique with conventional local infiltration technique in anesthetizing first permanent molars (FPMs) affected by MIH for restorative procedures in children.

Materials and Methods

This randomized controlled clinical trial recruited 54 MIH-affected mandibular or maxillary FPMs requiring restorations or stainless steel crowns. The teeth were randomly allocated to two equal groups to receive either IO injection or buccal infiltration (control), both using 4% articaine. Onset, time required, and pain experienced for administration, need for repeat, efficacy of anesthetic technique, heart rate, and postoperative complications were recorded in both the groups. Collected data were subjected to statistical analysis.

Results

Onset was significantly faster and pain experienced during administration was significantly lower with IO technique. Need for repeat of anesthesia was significantly more with infiltration (44.4% vs. 7.4% in IO, P = 0.004). Local infiltration failed to produce profound anesthesia in 74.1% MIH-affected teeth. IO anesthesia profoundly anesthetized 88.9% MIH-affected teeth. Anesthetic efficacy was significantly better with IO anesthesia (P < 0.001). Postoperative complications were significantly lower with IO anesthesia (P = 0.003).

Conclusion

IO local anesthesia was found to be an effective and safe technique to achieve profound anesthesia in MIH-affected teeth in children in comparison to local infiltration.

Role of intraseptal anesthesia for pain-free dental treatment

Pain control during the dental procedure is essentials and challenging. A complete efficacious pulp anesthesia has not been attained yet. The regional anesthesia such as inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) only does not guarantee the effective anesthesia with patients suffering from irreversible pulpitis. This main aim of this review was to discuss various aspects of intraseptal dental anesthesia and its role significance in pain-free treatment in the dental office. In addition, reasons of failure and limitations of this technique have been highlighted. Literature search was conducted for peer-reviewed articles published in English language in last 30 years. Search words such as dental anesthesia, pain control, intraseptal, and nerve block were entered using a web of knowledge and Google scholar databases. Various dental local anesthesia techniques were reviewed. A combination of block anesthesia, buccal infiltration and intraligamentary injection resulted in deep anesthesia (P = 0.003), and higher success rate compared to IANB. For pain-free management of conditions such as irreversible pulpitis, buccal infiltration (4% articaine), and intraosseous injection (2% lidocaine) are better than intraligamentary and IANB injections. Similarly, nerve block is not always effective for pain-free root canal treatment hence, needing supplemental anesthesia. Intraseptal anesthesia is an efficient and effective technique that can be used in maxillary and mandibular adult dentition. This technique is also beneficial when used in conjunction to the regional block or local dental anesthesia.

Efficacy of Ketorolac Buccal Infiltrations and Inferior Alveolar Nerve Blocks in Patients with Irreversible Pulpitis: A Prospective, Double-blind, Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to determine whether ketorolac buccal infiltrations (BIs) helped to improve the success of inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANBs) in patients with acute irreversible pulpitis (AIP).

METHODS

Forty adult volunteers with AIP in a mandibular molar were included in this study. Patients were instructed to evaluate their pain by using a Heft-Parker visual analog scale. They were randomly divided into 2 groups (n = 20). All patients received standard IANB injection and after that a BI of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. After 5 minutes, 20 patients received a BI of 30 mg/mL ketorolac, and the other received a BI of normal saline (control group). Endodontic access cavity preparation (ACP) was initiated 15 minutes after the IANB when the patient reported lip numbness and had 2 electric pulp tests with no responses. The patient's pain during caries and dentin removal, ACP, and canal length measurements (CLM) was recorded by using Heft-Parker visual analog scale. Successful anesthesia was defined as no or mild pain during any of these steps, without the need for additional injection. Data were statistically analyzed by using Mann-Whitney U and χ(2) tests.

RESULTS

Successful anesthesia after an IANB plus BI of articaine was obtained in 15% of patients in the control group at the end of CLM. Adding BI of ketorolac significantly increased the success rate to 40% (P < .05). Patient's pain during ACP and CLM was significantly lower in the ketorolac group (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Ketorolac BI can increase the success rate of anesthesia after IANB and BI with articaine in patients with AIP.

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.