Comparison of onset anesthesia time and injection discomfort of 4% articaine and 2% mepivacaine during teeth extractions

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Two Different Local Intraurethral Anesthetics in Optical Internal Urethrotomy at the Outpatient Clinic

OBJECTIVE

To assess feasibility and efficacy of local topical urethral anesthesia at optical internal urethrotomy (OIU) in patients with anterior and posterior urethral strictures at outpatient clinic.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty eight patients were prospectively randomized to perform OIU with intraurethral prilocaine solution (group 1 = 64 patients) or intraurethral lidocaine gel (group 2 = 64 patients). Visual analog scale was used for procedure related pain evaluation at the beginning, during, and one hour after the procedure. All patients had follow-ups for a minimum of 12 months. Treatment failure was defined as Qmax < 12ml/sec at uroflowmetry and observed urethral stricture on cystoscopy.

RESULTS

The overall success rate of the OIU was 75.8%. The intraoperative mean visual analogue score in group 2 (5,1 ± 1,77) was significantly higher than the group 1 (3.7 ± 1.9) (P = 0.0001). The median time to stricture recurrence was 9.2 months (range 1-13 months). Stricture recurrences were noted in 15 patients in Group 1 and 16 patients in Group 2 during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Prilocaine solution as a local anesthetic is a better option than intraurethral lidocaine gel in the OIU procedure and allows successful OIU to be performed in outpatient clinic. It can be preferred as a local anesthetic for OIU, particularly in unfit patients for general/regional anesthesia. Although it provides successful pain relief, it still cannot prevent experiencing moderate or severe pain in a group of patients. More studies about more effective local anesthetics for pain relief during OIU at the outpatient clinic are required.

Comparative evaluation of pain perception during conventional greater palatine injections versus the use of a novel barovibrotactile device - In vivo study

Background

Pain control by means of local anesthesia is an intrinsic part of clinical practice in dentistry. It is an irony that the modality used for pain free procedure itself is a source of fear & anxiety to the patient. Several modifications have been made to the injecting devices, local anesthetic solutions and techniques to render their administration comfortably. The objective of this study was thus designed to evaluate and compare anxiety and pain perception during conventional greater palatine injections versus use of a novel barovibrotactile device named Accupal to give painless anesthesia. This device has an additional attachment which works on Vibra-pulse technology thus minimizing pain during injection technique.

Materials and methods

A prospective, split mouth, open label, randomized, crossover clinical study was conducted on 50 patients coming to our institute whereby on one side Accupal was used during administration of local anesthesia. And on other side, traditional local anesthetic injection technique was used with one week of time interval.

Results

A statistically significant difference was found as in the pain perception between the two techniques as per Visual Analogue Scale whereas no difference was seen in the anxiety levels as per the physiological parameters recorded by noninvasive blood pressure machine at various intervals.

Conclusion

The use of Accupal has thus proved to show better pain control as compared to traditional injection techniques of local anesthesia.

Anesthetic efficacies of buccal with palatal injection versus buccal with intra-septal injection in permanent maxillary first molars of pediatric patients

The high success rate of dental treatment is dependent on the cooperation of pediatric patients during procedures. Dental treatment often causes pain, particularly in children. The factors in providing treatment to pediatric patients include the characteristics and location of the tooth, profoundness of the anesthesia including the type of local anesthetic, and cooperation of the patient. Previous studies have examined several techniques to successfully achieve profound pulpal anesthesia in maxillary permanent teeth. The dentist should select the injection technique to be used based on patient needs. In children, either buccal with palatal injections or buccal with intra-septal injections may be used to anesthetize the permanent maxillary first molar. Buccal with palatal injections are commonly used prior to routine maxillary dental procedures. Currently, there are only a few studies on the employment of buccal with intra-septal injections to anesthetize permanent maxillary first molars in pediatric patients. This review will focus on efficacy of buccal with palatal versus buccal with intra-septal pulpal anesthesia of the permanent maxillary first molars in pediatric patients and aim to determine which technique should be used during routine dental procedures.

Does articaine, rather than prilocaine, increase the success rate of anaesthesia for extraction of maxillary teeth

Objective:

To compare the anesthetic performances of 3% prilocaine and 4% articaine when used for the extraction of the maxillary teeth.

Materials and Methods:

Ninety-five patients, aged between 16 and 70 years, were included in this study. Patients were divided into two groups. Group one received articaine 4% with 1:00.000 adrenaline. Group two received prilocaine with 3% felypressin (0.03 I.U. per ml). Onset time of anesthesia was objectively evaluated by using electronic pulp testing.

Results:

Eighty-five patients in this study had a successful local anesthetic followed by extraction within the study duration time (10 minutes). However, there were six patients with failure anesthesia (5 in prilocaine group and 1 in articaine group). By applying Person's Chi-square test (x2), there were no significant differences in the number of episodes of the anesthetic success between articaine and prilocaine groups at time intervals (P = 0.5). T-test showed that there have been no important variations within the mean onset time of anesthesia for articaine and prilocaine buccal infiltrations (P = 0.1).

Conclusions:

3% Prilocaine with felypressin is as effective as 4% articaine with adrenaline when used for the extraction of maxillary teeth. Recommendations would be given to the dental practitioners to use prilocaine more frequently than articaine because of its low toxicity.

Trial registration number:

NCT04236115.

[Experimental study of the effectiveness of local anesthetic activity of a new dimethylphenylacetamide-containing pharmaceutical composition in chronic periodontitis]

Novel anaesthetic formulation LHT-15-32 was studied. The experimental study involved 66 white mice, 15 Rana radibunda frogs and 50 male Sprague Dawley rats. Its acute intravenous and subcutaneous toxicity was determined in mice. Pain sensitivity threshold of upper second molar was determined in rats with experimental periodontitis. Oxidative stress activity and total antioxidant capacity were determined in rats' gingival mucosa by induced chemiluminescence. Tissue IL-1β, IL-10 and TNF-a concentration was quantitatively assessed by ELISA. LHT-15-32 Na-blocking activity was studied on isolated neurons of Limnea stagnalis para-pharyngeal ganglion. Rana radibunda isolated sciatic nerve was perfused with LHT-15-32 to assess its conductivity. LHT-15-32 acute intravenous and subcutaneous toxicity was lower then that of its active substance LHT-4-00. The formulation infraorbital administration induced deep dental anaesthesia lasted longer than 70 min, activated local antioxidant defence system and decreased IL-1β level in gingival tissue. At 10^-6 to 10^-3 M LHT-15-32 inhibited sciatic nerve conductivity and blocked Na⁺-channels of isolated neurons in dose-dependent manner. LHT-15-32 proved to be less toxic than active substance and lidocaine. The agent provides deep and prolonged anesthesia of the upper molar of rats in chronic apical periodontitis, lowers tissue concentration of pain cascade cytokines and oxidative stress activity and suppresses the action potential amplitude of a sensory nerve due to Na-blocking activity.

Novel Dimethylacetamide-Containing Formulation Improves Infraorbital Anaesthesia Efficacy in Rats with Periodontitis

Background

To evaluate acute toxicity and local anaesthetic activity of a formulation containing a novel dimethylacetamide derivative, antioxidant, and vasoconstrictor in rats with chronic periodontitis.

Methods

Novel anaesthetic dimethylacetamide-containing formulation LHT-15-32 was studied as 2% water solution. Its acute intravenous and subcutaneous toxicity was determined in mice. Pain sensitivity threshold of the upper second molar was determined in rats with experimental periodontitis. Oxidative stress activity and total antioxidant capacity were determined in rats' gingival mucosa by induced chemiluminescence. Local changes were evaluated in periodontal tissue by morphological examination. Tissue IL-1β, IL-10, and TNF-α concentration was quantitatively assessed by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. LHT-15-31 Na-blocking activity was studied on isolated neurons of Limnaea stagnalis' parapharyngeal ganglion. Isolated sciatic nerve of Rana radibunda was perfused with different concentrations of LHT-15-32 to assess its conductivity. Statistical analysis was used, and continuous variables were presented as mean ± square deviation. The normality of distribution was determined using ANOVA. Newman–Keuls parametric criterion was used for intergroup comparison. LD₅₀ indexes were calculated by probit analysis.

Results

LHT-15-32 acute intravenous and subcutaneous toxicity was lower than that of its active substance. The formulation by infraorbital administration induced deep dental anaesthesia which lasted over 70 min and activated the local antioxidant defense system and decreased IL-1β level in gingival tissue. LHT-15-32 triggered tissue reparation around the impacted upper molar in rats assessed five days after administration. At 10⁻⁶ to 10⁻³ M concentration, LHT-15-32 inhibited sciatic nerve conductivity and blocked Na⁺ channels of isolated neurons in a dose-dependent manner.

Conclusions

The formulation may be considered as an effective and safe approach to anaesthetize upper molars with periodontitis.

Impact of maxillary teeth morphology on the failure rate of local anesthesia

Objective:

To investigate the effect of maxillary single and multiple rooted teeth on the success rate of buccal infiltration anesthesia.

Subjects and Methods:

This clinical study was performed by dividing the participants into three groups. Group one included 30 patients with upper anterior teeth, group two 23 patients with upper premolars teeth and group three 39 patients with upper molars for extraction. Onset time of anesthtic action was evaluted by using electronic pulp tester. Pulp testing assessments were carried out immediately before the injection and at the intervals of 2 mins following the injection until the anesthetic success obtains.

Results:

Seventy-nine patients in this study secured anesthetic success within study duration time (10 min). However, there were 13 patients with dental anesthesia failures (3 patients with single rooted teeth and 10 patients with multiple rooted teeth). There were no significant differences in the mean onset time of pulpal anesthesia between the anterior, middle and posterior teeth (P value = 0.449). Clinically, patients with single rooted teeth reported faster dental anesthesia and earlier teeth extraction than patients with multiple rooted teeth.

Conclusion:

This study showed that the single rooted teeth have faster pulpal anesthesia and early extraction than teeth with multiple roots but not statistically significant. Administration of extra local anesthetic cartridge or using intraseptal injection technique can be a solution to overcome the failure of anesthesia in the maxillary posterior teeth.

Is prilocaine safe and potent enough for use in the oral surgery of medically compromised patients

Objectives:

To investigate the potency and speed of action of 2% lidocaine and 3% prilocaine for upper teeth extractions.

Methods:

This prospective clinical study was conducted from November 2016 to May 2017. Ninety-six patients, aged between 16 to 70 years old were recruited in this study. Two regimens were randomly administered over one visit. Patients, treatment group I, received 2% lidocaine with 1:00.000 adrenaline. Patients treatment group II received prilocaine 3% and felypressin 0.03 I.U. per ml. The efficacy of pulp anesthesia was determined by electronic pulp testing. At any point of trial (10 minutes), the anesthetized tooth becomes unresponsive for maximal pulp stimulation (64 reading), the extraction was carried out.

Results:

There were no significant differences in the mean onset time of pulpal anesthesia and extraction between the prilocaine and lidocaine buccal infiltration groups (p=0.28). However, clinically, the patients in prilocaine group recorded faster onset time of anesthesia and teeth extraction than those in lidocaine group.

Conclusion:

Prilocaine has a better clinical performance in terms of providing rapid dental anesthesia and earlier teeth extraction than lidocaine but the differences were not significant. Prilocaine with felypressin could be a good choice for patients who have contraindication to the use of lidocaine with adrenaline.

Is prilocaine safe and potent enough for use in the oral surgery of medically compromised patients

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the potency and speed of action of 2% lidocaine and 3% prilocaine for upper teeth extractions.

METHODS

This prospective clinical study was conducted from November 2016 to May 2017. Ninety-six patients, aged between 16 to 70 years old were recruited in this study. Two regimens were randomly administered over one visit. Patients, treatment group I, received 2% lidocaine with 1:00.000 adrenaline. Patients treatment group II received prilocaine 3% and felypressin 0.03 I.U. per ml. The efficacy of pulp anesthesia was determined by electronic pulp testing. At any point of trial (10 minutes), the anesthetized tooth becomes unresponsive for maximal pulp stimulation (64 reading), the extraction was carried out.  Results: There were no significant differences in the mean onset time of pulpal anesthesia and extraction between the prilocaine and lidocaine buccal infiltration groups (p=0.28). However, clinically, the patients in prilocaine group recorded faster onset time of anesthesia and teeth extraction than those in lidocaine group. Conclusion: Prilocaine has a better clinical performance in terms of providing rapid dental anesthesia and earlier teeth extraction than lidocaine but the differences were not significant. Prilocaine with felypressin could be a good choice for patients who have contraindication to the use of lidocaine with adrenaline.

2% lidocaine versus 3% prilocaine for oral and maxillofacial surgery

Objective

To investigate the speed of action and injection discomfort of 2% lidocaine and 3% prilocaine for upper teeth extractions.

Materials and Methods

Forty-six patients were included in the prilocaine 3% group, and 46 in the lidocaine 2% control group. After all injections, soft and hard tissue numbness was objectively gauged by dental probe at intervals of 15 s. Moreover, the pain of the injections was recorded by the patients after each treatment on standard 100 mm visual analog scales, tagged at the endpoints with "no pain" (0 mm) and "unbearable pain" (100 mm).

Results

There were no significant differences in the meantime of first numbness to associated buccal, palatal mucosa, and tooth of patients in the lidocaine and prilocaine buccal infiltration groups (P = 0.56, 0.37, and 0.33). However, clinically, the patients in prilocaine group recorded earlier buccal, palatal mucosa, and teeth numbness than those in lidocaine group. With regards to the discomfort of the needle injections, there was a significant difference for lidocaine and prilocaine groups when comparing the post buccal scores with the post palatal injection scores (t-test: P < 0.001). Lidocaine and prilocaine buccal injections were significantly more comfortable than palatal injections.

Conclusions

Using 2% lidocaine and 3% prilocaine for extractions of upper maxillary teeth produces similarly successful anesthesia. Clinically, prilocaine has slightly rapid onset of action, earlier buccal mucosa, hard palate, and teeth numbness. Prilocaine and lidocaine buccal injection was significantly more comfortable than palatal injection.

Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

Pain during dental treatment, which is a common fear of patients, can be controlled successfully by local anaesthetic. Several different local anaesthetic formulations and techniques are available to dentists.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objectives were to compare the success of anaesthesia, the speed of onset and duration of anaesthesia, and systemic and local adverse effects amongst different local anaesthetic formulations for dental anaesthesia. We define success of anaesthesia as absence of pain during a dental procedure, or a negative response to electric pulp testing or other simulated scenario tests. We define dental anaesthesia as anaesthesia given at the time of any dental intervention.Our secondary objective was to report on patients' experience of the procedures carried out.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (OVID SP), Embase, CINAHL PLUS, WEB OF SCIENCE, and other resources up to 31 January 2018. Other resources included trial registries, handsearched journals, conference proceedings, bibliographies/reference lists, and unpublished research.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing different formulations of local anaesthetic used for clinical procedures or simulated scenarios. Studies could apply a parallel or cross-over design.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological approaches for data collection and analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 123 studies (19,223 participants) in the review. We pooled data from 68 studies (6615 participants) for meta-analysis, yielding 23 comparisons of local anaesthetic and 57 outcomes with 14 different formulations. Only 10 outcomes from eight comparisons involved clinical testing.We assessed the included studies as having low risk of bias in most domains. Seventy-three studies had at least one domain with unclear risk of bias. Fifteen studies had at least one domain with high risk of bias due to inadequate sequence generation, allocation concealment, masking of local anaesthetic cartridges for administrators or outcome assessors, or participant dropout or exclusion.We reported results for the eight most important comparisons.Success of anaesthesiaWhen the success of anaesthesia in posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring root canal treatment is tested, 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine, may be superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (31% with 2% lidocaine vs 49% with 4% articaine; risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 2.32; 4 parallel studies; 203 participants; low-quality evidence).When the success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures and surgical procedures/periodontal treatment, respectively, was tested, 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin (66% with 3% prilocaine vs 76% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; 2 parallel studies; 907 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and 4% prilocaine plain (71% with 4% prilocaine vs 83% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; 2 parallel studies; 228 participants; low-quality evidence) were inferior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine.Comparative effects of 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine on success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures are uncertain (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.02; 3 parallel studies; 930 participants; very low-quality evidence).Comparative effects of 0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.83; 2 cross-over studies; 37 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.07 to 5.12; 2 cross-over studies; 31 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction are uncertain.Comparative effects of 2% mepivacaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 3.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 23.82; 1 parallel and 1 cross-over study; 110 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.25 to 5.45; 2 parallel studies; 68 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction and teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring endodontic access and instrumentation, respectively, are uncertain.For remaining outcomes, assessing success of dental local anaesthesia via meta-analyses was not possible.Onset and duration of anaesthesiaFor comparisons assessing onset and duration, no clinical studies met our outcome definitions.Adverse effects (continuous pain measured on 170-mm Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (VAS))Differences in post-injection pain between 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine are small, as measured on a VAS (mean difference (MD) 4.74 mm, 95% CI -1.98 to 11.46 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 314 interventions; moderate-quality evidence). Lidocaine probably resulted in slightly less post-injection pain than articaine (MD 6.41 mm, 95% CI 1.01 to 11.80 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 309 interventions; moderate-quality evidence) on the same VAS.For remaining comparisons assessing local and systemic adverse effects, meta-analyses were not possible. Other adverse effects were rare and minor.Patients' experiencePatients' experience of procedures was not assessed owing to lack of data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For success (absence of pain), low-quality evidence suggests that 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine for root treating of posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis, and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 4% prilocaine plain when surgical procedures/periodontal treatment was provided. Moderate-quality evidence shows that 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin when surgical procedures were performed.Adverse events were rare. Moderate-quality evidence shows no difference in pain on injection when 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine were compared, although lidocaine resulted in slightly less pain following injection.Many outcomes tested our primary objectives in simulated scenarios, although clinical alternatives may not be possible.Further studies are needed to increase the strength of the evidence. These studies should be clearly reported, have low risk of bias with adequate sample size, and provide data in a format that will allow meta-analysis. Once assessed, results of the 34 'Studies awaiting classification (full text unavailable)' may alter the conclusions of the review.

Is Articaine More Potent than Mepivacaine for Use in Oral Surgery?

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the potency and speed of action of 4% articaine and 2% mepivacaine for maxillary teeth extractions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ninety-four patients, aged between 16 to 70 years old, were recruited in this study. Two regimens were randomly administered over one visit. Patients of treatment group 1 received mepivacaine 2% with 1:100,000 adrenaline, whereas treatment group 2 - articaine 4% with 1:100,000 adrenaline. The onset time of pulp anaesthesia for maxillary teeth indicated for extraction was determined by electronic pulp testing. At any point of trial (10 minutes), the anesthetized tooth becomes unresponsive for maximal pulp stimulation (64 reading), the extraction was carried out.

RESULTS

In this study, 85 patients had successful local anaesthetic followed by extraction within the study duration time (10 min). However, 5 patients had failed dental extraction (4 in mepivacaine group and 1 in articaine group). Patients in the articaine buccal infiltration group recorded faster onset time of action regarding anaesthesia and teeth extraction than patients in mepivacaine buccal infiltration group (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Articaine is an effective anaesthetic with a rapid onset, comparable to mepivacaine in infiltrative techniques used for maxillary teeth extraction. However, articaine has clinically achieved faster dental anaesthesia and earlier teeth extraction than mepivacaine. So, articaine can be the local anaesthetic of first choice in oral surgery.

Effect of painless STA on tooth extraction of elderly patients with periodontal diseases

This study compared the effects of tooth extractions under novel painless single tooth anesthesia (STA) and conventional anesthesia on elderly patients with periodontal diseases, and the impact of painless STA on clinical indicators of the patients. Elderly patients (n=116) with periodontal diseases who were treated in Jinan Central Hospital were selected to undergo extraction operation on loose teeth; all the patients were randomly divided into two groups. The tooth extraction operations were performed after painless STA and cartridge anesthesia; the effects of the tooth extraction operations and the operation time were recorded; Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Kuttner facial expression scale, Frankl treatment compliance scale and Houpt behavior rating scale were utilized to assess and record the clinical indicators of the patients during the operations; the impacts of the two anesthesia techniques on the effect of the tooth extraction of patients with periodontal diseases were comprehensively analyzed. Compared with conventional cartridge anesthesia, painless STA could effectively shorten the operation time (P<0.01); the Frankl treatment compliance score and Houpt behavior rating score of patients receiving painless STA were remarkably higher than those of patients receiving conventional cartridge anesthesia (P<0.01); during the operation, painless STA could effectively reduce the blood pressure and slow the heart rate by comparing with cartridge anesthesia (P<0.01, P<0.05); the scores of STA and Kuttner facial expressions in patients receiving painless STA were significantly lower than those in patients receiving conventional cartridge anesthesia (P<0.01); after the operation, the incidence of adverse reactions, such as pain and swelling, in patients receiving painless STA was obviously decreased compared with that in patients receiving conventional cartridge anesthesia (P<0.01). The novel painless STA can notably shorten the time of tooth extraction of elderly patients with periodontal diseases, reduce postoperative pain and swelling, increase the compliance of the operation, alleviate the impact of tooth extraction operation on the clinical indicators of the patients and relieve the pain of patients caused by the operation.