Effect of massage on the efficacy of the mental and incisive nerve block.

The purpose of this trial was to assess the effect of soft tissue massage on the efficacy of the mental and incisive nerve block (MINB). Thirty-eight volunteers received MINB of 2.2 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1 : 80,000 epinephrine on 2 occasions. At one visit the soft tissue overlying the injection site was massaged for 60 seconds (active treatment). At the other visit the crowns of the mandibular premolar teeth were massaged (control treatment). Order of treatments was randomized. An electronic pulp tester was used to measure pulpal anesthesia in the ipsilateral mandibular first molar, a premolar, and lateral incisor teeth up to 45 minutes following the injection. The efficacy of pulp anesthesia was determined by 2 methods: (a) by quantifying the number of episodes with no response to maximal electronic pulp stimulation after each treatment, and (b) by quantifying the number of volunteers with no response to maximal pulp stimulation (80 reading) on 2 or more consecutive tests, termed anesthetic success. Data were analyzed by McNemar, Mann-Whitney, and paired-samples t tests. Anesthetic success was 52.6% for active and 42.1% for control treatment for lateral incisors, 89.5 and 86.8% respectively for premolars, and 50.0 and 42.1% respectively for first molars (P = .344, 1.0, and .508 respectively). There were no significant differences in the number of episodes of negative response to maximum pulp tester stimulation between active and control massage. A total of 131 episodes were recorded after both active and control massage in lateral incisors (McNemar test, P = 1.0), 329 (active) versus 316 (control) episodes in the premolars (McNemar test, P = .344), and 119 (active) versus 109 (control) episodes respectively for first molars (McNemar test, P = .444). Speed of anesthetic onset and discomfort did not differ between treatments. We concluded that soft tissue massage after MINB does not influence anesthetic efficacy.

The efficacy of infiltration anaesthesia for adult mandibular incisors: a randomised double-blind cross-over trial comparing articaine and lidocaine buccal and buccal plus lingual infiltrations.

AIM: To compare the efficacy of 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine both with 1:100,000 adrenaline in anaesthetising the pulps of mandibular incisors. METHODS: Thirty-one healthy adult volunteers received the following local anaesthetic regimens adjacent to a mandibular central incisor: 1) buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL lidocaine plus dummy lingual injection (LB), 2) buccal plus lingual infiltrations of 0.9 mL lidocaine (LBL), 3) buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL articaine plus dummy lingual injection (AB), 4) buccal plus lingual infiltrations of 0.9 mL articaine (ABL). Pulp sensitivities of the central incisor and contralateral lateral incisor were assessed electronically. Anaesthetic efficacy was determined by two methods: 1) Recording the number of episodes with no responses to maximal electronic pulp tester stimulation during the course of the study period, 2) recording the number of volunteers with no response to maximal pulp tester stimulation within 15 min and maintained for 45 min (defined as sustained anaesthesia). Data were analysed by McNemar, chi-square, Mann-Whitney and paired t-tests. RESULTS: For both test teeth, the number of episodes of no sensation on maximal stimulation was significantly greater after articaine than lidocaine for both techniques. The split buccal plus lingual dose was more effective than the buccal injection alone for both solutions (p <0.001). 4% articaine was more effective than 2% lidocaine when comparing sustained anaesthesia in both teeth for each technique (p <0.001), however, there was no difference in sustained anaesthesia between techniques for either tooth or solution. CONCLUSIONS: 4% articaine was more effective than 2% lidocaine (both with 1:100,000 adrenaline) in anaesthetising the pulps of lower incisor teeth after buccal or buccal plus lingual infiltrations.