Anesthetic efficacy of infiltrations in mandibular anterior teeth.

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to measure the degree of anesthesia obtained with a labial infiltration of either 2% lidocaine with 1:50,000 or 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in mandibular anterior teeth. Another objective was to measure the degree of anesthesia obtained with a lingual infiltration of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in mandibular anterior teeth. Through use of a repeated-measures design, 40 subjects randomly received a labial infiltration at the lateral incisor apex of either 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:50,000 epinephrine at 2 separate appointments. An additional 40 subjects received a lingual infiltration at the lateral incisor apex of 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. The mandibular anterior teeth were blindly pulp tested at 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. No response from the subject to the maximum output (80 reading) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained. For the 3 infiltrations, success rates for the lateral incisor ranged from 43 to 50%. Adjacent teeth had success rates of 27 to 63%. There was no significant difference (P > 0.05) in success between the labial infiltration of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:50,000 epinephrine or the lingual infiltration of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine when compared with the labial infiltration of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Duration of pulpal anesthesia declined steadily for all solutions over the 60 minutes. In conclusion, the success rate of 43-50% and declining duration of pulpal anesthesia over an hour indicates that a labial infiltration of 1.8 mL of either 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 1: 50,000 epinephrine or a lingual infiltration of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine over the lateral incisor apex cannot be recommended clinically to provide profound pulpal anesthesia.

Effect of prophylactic amoxicillin on endodontic flare-up in asymptomatic, necrotic teeth.

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to determine the effect of prophylactic amoxicillin on the occurrence of endodontic flare-up in asymptomatic, necrotic teeth. Seventy patients participated and had a clinical diagnosis of an asymptomatic, necrotic tooth with associated periapical radiolucency. One hour before endodontic treatment, patients randomly received either 3 g of amoxicillin or 3 g of a placebo control in a double-blind manner. After endodontic treatment, each patient received: ibuprofen; acetaminophen with codeine (30 mg); and a 5 1/2-day diary to record pain, swelling, percussion pain, and number and type of pain medication taken. The results demonstrated 10% of the 70 patients had a flare-up characterized by moderate-to-severe postoperative pain or swelling that began approximately 30 h after endodontic treatment and persisted for an average of 74 h. Of the seven patients who had flare-ups, 4 were in the amoxicillin group and 3 were not. Prophylactic amoxicillin did not significantly (p = 0.80) influence the endodontic flare-up. We concluded that a prophylactic dose of amoxicillin before endodontic treatment of asymptomatic, necrotic teeth had no effect on the endodontic flare-up.

Anesthetic efficacy of unilateral and bilateral inferior alveolar nerve blocks to determine cross innervation in anterior teeth.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to measure the degree of anesthesia obtained with unilateral and bilateral inferior alveolar nerve blocks to determine whether cross innervation occurs in anterior teeth. STUDY DESIGN: Through use of a repeated-measures design, 38 subjects randomly received unilateral or bilateral inferior alveolar nerve blocks at two separate appointments. Each inferior alveolar nerve block used 3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Mandibular anterior teeth were blindly pulp-tested at 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes' postinjection. No response from the subject to the maximum output (80 reading) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained. RESULTS: One hundred percent of the subjects had lip numbness with each of the inferior alveolar nerve block techniques. Anesthetic success rates of the unilateral inferior alveolar nerve block were 39% for the central incisor, 50% for the lateral incisor, and 68% for the canine. For the bilateral inferior alveolar nerve blocks, success rates were 66% for the central incisor, 74% for the lateral incisor, and 76% for the canine. The bilateral inferior alveolar nerve block success rates were significantly (P <.05) higher for the central and lateral incisors when compared with the success rates of the unilateral inferior alveolar nerve block. CONCLUSIONS: Cross innervation does seem to occur in mandibular central and lateral incisors. However, the success rates in these teeth with bilateral inferior alveolar nerve blocks were below 75%. The failure of the inferior alveolar nerve blocks to anesthetize the anterior teeth was the overriding reason for failure. Clinically, bilateral inferior alveolar nerve blocks to provide profound pulpal anesthesia in mandibular anterior teeth are not recommended on the basis of the results of this study.

The use of ultrasound for guiding needle placement for inferior alveolar nerve blocks.

OBJECTIVE: The degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with an ultrasound-assisted inferior alveolar nerve block was compared to that obtained with a conventional inferior alveolar nerve block for mandibular teeth to determine whether needle placement assisted by ultrasound results in more successful anesthesia. STUDY DESIGN: Through use of a repeated-measures design, each of 40 subjects randomly received an ultrasound-assisted inferior alveolar nerve block and a conventional inferior alveolar nerve block at 2 separate appointments. Mandibular anterior and posterior teeth were blindly tested by means of a pulp tester at 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive readings of 80 were obtained. RESULTS: One hundred percent of the subjects had profound lip numbness with both the ultrasound-assisted inferior alveolar nerve block and the conventional inferior alveolar nerve block. For these 2 techniques, anesthetic success rates for individual teeth ranged from 38% to 92%. There were no significant differences (P > .05) between the 2 techniques. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that accurate needle placement with ultrasound for the inferior alveolar nerve block did not result in more successful pulpal anesthesia in the mandible. Therefore, accuracy of needle placement is not the primary reason for pulpal anesthetic failure with this block.

Anesthetic efficacy of the mylohyoid nerve block and combination inferior alveolar nerve block/mylohyoid nerve block.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to measure the degree of anesthesia obtained with the mylohyoid nerve block and the combination mylohyoid nerve block/conventional inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block in mandibular teeth. STUDY DESIGN: With the use of a repeated-measures design, 30 subjects randomly received each of 3 combinations of injections at 3 separate appointments. The combinations were as follows: mylohyoid nerve block (1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine) + IAN block (3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine); mock mylohyoid nerve block + IAN block (3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine); mylohyoid nerve block (1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine) + mock IAN block. The mylohyoid injections were aided by the use of a peripheral nerve stimulator. Mandibular anterior and posterior teeth were blindly tested with a pulp tester at 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained. RESULTS: One hundred percent of the subjects had lip numbness with the mylohyoid nerve block + IAN block and mock mylohyoid nerve block + IAN block techniques. For these 2 techniques, anesthetic success rates were higher in posterior teeth (73% to 93%) than in anterior teeth (33% to 60%). There were no significant differences (P > .05) between the 2 techniques. The mylohyoid nerve block + mock IAN block technique resulted in a very low success rate (0% to 17%) and was significantly different (P < .05) from the mylohyoid nerve block + IAN block technique. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the mylohyoid nerve block does not by itself predictably provide pulpal anesthesia in mandibular teeth and does not significantly enhance pulpal anesthesia when administered in combination with the IAN block.

Cardiovascular effects of intraosseous injections of 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 3 percent mepivacaine.

BACKGROUND: Because a number of patients have reported an increase in heart rate with the intraosseous, or i.o., injection, it is important to evaluate changes in the cardiovascular system with this injection technique. The purpose of this study was to determine the cardiovascular effects of an i.o. injection of 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 3 percent mepivacaine. METHODS: With the use of a repeated-measures design, the authors randomly assigned 42 subjects to receive i.o. injections of 1.8 milliliters of 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 1.8 mL of 3 percent mepivacaine in a double-blinded manner at two appointments. At each appointment the authors monitored electrocardiographic findings, cardiac rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure before, during and after administration of anesthetic solutions. RESULTS: With the 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine solution, 28 (67 percent) of 42 subjects experienced an increase in heart rate that might be attributed to the effect of the epinephrine. In 22 (79 percent) of these subjects, the heart rate returned to within 5 beats of baseline values within four minutes after solution deposition. The authors found no significant increase in heart rate in subjects receiving the 3 percent mepivacaine. No significant differences (P > .05) were found in mean diastolic, mean systolic or mean arterial blood pressure values between the subjects receiving 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and those receiving 3 percent mepivacaine. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of subjects receiving the i.o. injection of the 2 percent lidocaine-epinephrine solution experienced a transient increase in heart rate. No significant increase in heart rate was seen with the i.o. injection of 3 percent mepivacaine. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: While patients would likely notice the heart rate increase with the lidocaine-epinephrine solution, it would not be clinically significant in most healthy patients. In patients whose medical condition, drug therapies or epinephrine sensitivity suggests caution, 3 percent mepivacaine is a good alternative for i.o. injections.

Anesthetic efficacy of the intraosseous injection of 0.9 mL of 2% lidocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) to augment an inferior alveolar nerve block.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of an intraosseous injection of 0.9 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine to augment an inferior alveolar nerve block in mandibular posterior teeth. STUDY DESIGN: With the use of a repeated-measures design, each of 38 subjects randomly received one or the other of 2 combinations of injections at 2 separate appointments. The combinations were inferior alveolar nerve block + intraosseous injection (on the distal of the second premolar) through use of 0.9 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and inferior alveolar nerve block + mock intraosseous injection. The first molar, second premolar, and second molar were blindly tested with an Analytic Technology pulp tester at 2-minute cycles for 120 minutes postinjection. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained. RESULTS: One hundred percent of the subjects had lip numbness with the inferior alveolar nerve block + intraosseous injection combination technique. The respective anesthetic success rates for the inferior alveolar nerve block + mock intraosseous injection combination and the inferior alveolar nerve block + intraosseous injection combination were 60% and 100% for the second premolar, 71% and 95% for the first molar, and 74% and 87% for the second molar. The differences were significant (P < .05) for the second premolar through 50 minutes and for the first molar through 20 minutes. There were no significant (P > .05) differences for the second molar. Sixty-eight percent of the subjects had a subjective increase in heart rate with the intraosseous injection. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that the supplemental intraosseous injection of 0.9 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, given distal to the second premolar, significantly increased the success of pulpal anesthesia in the second premolar (for 50 minutes) and first molar (for 20 minutes) in comparison with the inferior alveolar nerve block alone. The intraosseous injection did not statistically increase success in the second molar.

Anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental intraosseous injection of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in irreversible pulpitis.

The purpose of this study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of a supplemental intraosseous injection of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis. Fifty-one patients with symptomatic, vital maxillary, and mandibular posterior teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis received conventional infiltrations or inferior alveolar nerve blocks. Pulp testing was used to determine pulpal anesthesia after "clinically successful" injections. Patients who were positive to the pulp tests, or were negative to the pulp tests but felt pain during endodontic access, received an intraosseous injection using 1.8 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. The results demonstrated that 42% of the patients who tested negative to the pulp tests reported pain during treatment and required supplemental anesthesia. Eighty-one percent of the mandibular teeth and 12% of maxillary teeth required an intraosseous injection due to failure to gain pulpal anesthesia. Overall, the Stabident intraosseous injection was found to be 88% successful in gaining total pulpal anesthesia for endodontic therapy. We concluded that, for posterior teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis, the supplemental intraosseous injection of 2% lidocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) was successful when conventional techniques failed.

Anesthetic efficacy of a repeated intraosseous injection given 30 min following an inferior alveolar nerve block/intraosseous injection.

To determine whether a repeated intraosseous (IO) injection would increase or prolong pulpal anesthesia, we measured the degree of anesthesia obtained by a repeated IO injection given 30 min following a combination inferior alveolar nerve block/intraosseous injection (IAN/IO) in mandibular second premolars and in first and second molars. Using a repeated-measures design, we randomly assigned 38 subjects to receive two combinations of injections at two separate appointments. The combinations were an IAN/IO injection followed approximately 30 min later by another IO injection of 0.9 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and a combination IAN/IO injection followed approximately 30 min later by a mock IO injection. The second premolar, first molar, and second molar were blindly tested with an Analytic Technology pulp tester at 2-min cycles for 120 min postinjection. Anesthesia was considered successful when two consecutive readings of 80 were obtained. One hundred percent of the subjects had lip numbness with IAN/IO and with IAN/IO plus repeated IO techniques. Rates of anesthetic success for the IAN/IO and for the IAN/IO plus repeated IO injection, respectively, were 100% and 97% for the second premolar, 95% and 95% for the first molar, and 87% and 87% for the second molar. The repeated IO injection increased pulpal anesthesia for approximately 14 min in the second premolar and for 6 min in the first molar, but no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) were shown. In conclusion, the repeated IO injection of 0.9 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine given 30 min following a combination IAN/IO injection did not significantly increase pulpal anesthesia in mandibular second premolars or in first and second molars.

Peripheral opioid analgesia in teeth with symptomatic inflamed pulps.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the ability of low-dose fentanyl to produce analgesia when administered via the periodontal ligament injection in teeth with symptomatic, inflamed pulps. All subjects presented for emergency treatment with moderate to severe pain and had a posterior tooth with a clinical diagnosis of irreversible pulpitis. Twenty subjects randomly received either 10 micrograms fentanyl citrate or saline placebo via the periodontal ligament injection in a double-blind manner. The subjects rated their pain prior to injection and rated pain intensity and pain half gone for 59 min postinjection. Low-dose fentanyl delivered via the periodontal ligament injection in inflamed teeth provided significantly greater analgesia than the saline placebo (P < 0.05). Since the dose of fentanyl used was less than the dose required to provide analgesia by a central mechanism, the results of this study may be consistent with a peripheral opioid mechanism of action.

Anesthetic efficacy of the intraosseous injection of 2% lidocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) and 3% mepivacaine in mandibular first molars.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the anesthetic efficacy of a primary intraosseous injection of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 3% mepivacaine in human mandibular first molars. Injection pain and healing postoperatively were also assessed for the intraosseous injection. STUDY DESIGN: With the use of a repeated-measures design, 42 subjects randomly received intraosseous injections of 1.8 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 1.8 ml of 3% mepivacaine in a double-blind manner at two successive appointments. The first molar and adjacent teeth were blindly tested with an electric pulp tester at 2-minute cycles for 60 minutes. Anesthetic success was defined as no subject response to the maximum output of the pulp tester (80 reading) for two consecutive readings. RESULTS: Anesthetic success occurred in 74% of the first molars with 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and in 45% with 3% mepivacaine. The difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Overall, onset was rapid for the intraosseous injections, the duration of pulpal anesthesia steadily declined over the 60 minutes, the majority of the subjects had no pain or mild pain with perforation and solution deposition, and 5% of the subjects had delayed healing at the perforation sites. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that the primary intraosseous injection of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine is more successful and results in a longer duration of pulpal anesthesia as compared with 3% mepivacaine in noninflamed mandibular first molars. Most subjects reported no or mild pain during perforation and injection.

Anesthetic efficacy of the intraosseous injection after an inferior alveolar nerve block.

The purpose of this study was to determine the contribution of the intraosseous (IO) injection to the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block in human first molars. Using a repeated-measures design, 40 subjects randomly received either a combination IAN block + IO injection (on the distal of the first molar) using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or an IAN block+mock IO injection (gingival penetration only) at two successive appointments. The first molar and adjacent teeth, and contralateral canine (+/-controls) were blindly tested with an Analytic Technology pulp tester at 2-min cycles for 60 min. An 80 reading was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. One hundred percent of the subjects had lip numbness with the IAN block. For the first molar, anesthetic success, defined as achieving an 80 reading within 15 min and keeping this reading for 60 min, was 42% with the IAN and 90% with the IAN + IO. Anesthetic failure defined as never achieving two 80 readings during the 60 min was 32% with the IAN and 0% with the IAN + IO. The onset of anesthesia was immediate with the IO injection. Eighty percent of the subjects sampled had a subjective increase in heart rate with the IO injection. The IO injection and postinjection questionnaire recorded low pain ratings.

Anesthetic efficacy of the intraosseous injection in maxillary and mandibular teeth.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of the intraosseous injection as a primary technique in human maxillary and mandibular teeth. STUDY DESIGN: Forty subjects received two sets of intraosseous injections with 1.8 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine at two successive appointments. The experimental teeth consisted of 40 groups of maxillary and mandibular first molars and lateral incisors. Each experimental tooth and adjacent teeth were tested with an electric pulp tester at 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes. Anesthetic success was defined as no subject response to the maximum output of the pulp tester (80 reading) for two consecutive readings. RESULTS: Anesthetic success occurred in 75% of mandibular first molars, in 93% of maxillary first molars, in 78% of mandibular lateral incisors, and in 90% of maxillary lateral incisors. Overall, for the intraosseous injection onset was immediate, the duration of pulpal anesthesia steadily declined over the 60 minutes, there was a 78% incidence of subjective increase in heart rate, the majority of the subjects had no pain or mild pain with perforation and solution deposition, and 3% of the subjects had slow healing perforation sites. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that the intraosseous injection may provide pulpal anesthesia in 75% to 93% of noninflamed teeth as a primary technique. However, the duration of pulpal anesthesia declines steadily over an hour.

Anesthetic efficacy of the periodontal ligament injection after an inferior alveolar nerve block.

The purpose of this study was to determine the contribution of the periodontal ligament injection (PDL) to the inferior aveolar nerve (IAN) block in human first molars. Using a repeated-measures design, 40 subjects randomly received a combination IAN block and PDL injections of the first molar using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and a combination IAN block and mock PDL injections (needle penetration only) at two successive appointments. The first molar and adjacent teeth, and contralateral canine (positive and negative controls) were blindly tested with an Analytic Technology pulp tester at 2-min cycles for 60 min. Profound anesthesia was defined as no subject response at an 80 reading. One hundred percent of the subjects had lip numbness with the IAN block. When the combination IAN/PDL injections were compared with the IAN block, the incidence of successful pulpal anesthesia (80 reading) was significantly greater for the combination injections through the first 23 min of pulp testing. However, after 23 min, there was no increase in anesthetic success by adding the PDL to the IAN injection. We concluded that adding the PDL injection to an IAN block increased the incidence of pulpal anesthesia for the first 23 min in the first molar.

An in vivo evaluation of the efficacy of ultrasound after step-back preparation in mandibular molars.

This study histologically compared the in vivo debridement efficacy of the step-back preparation versus a step-back/ultrasound preparation in the mesial root canals of vital mandibular molars. Group 1 consisted of 17 teeth prepared with a step-back technique using intermittent irrigation with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite. Group 2 consisted of 17 teeth prepared with a step-back technique as in group 1 followed by 3 min of ultrasonic instrumentation per canal utilizing a #15 Endosonic file in an Enac unit set at 3.5. An additional 6 ml/canal of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite was used during the ultrasonic preparation. Eight uninstrumented mandibular molars served as histological controls. Following extraction and histological preparation, 0.2-microns cross-sections from the 1- to 3-mm apical levels of the canal and isthmus were evaluated for percentage of tissue removal using an Olympus CUE-2 Image Analysis System. Factorial analysis of variance indicated canal and isthmus cleanliness values were significantly higher, at all 11 apical levels, with the ultrasonic technique. Sample values at the 1-, 2-, and 3-mm levels for the step-back and step-back/ultrasonic techniques, respectively, were: canal, 64% versus 92%, 81% versus 97%, and 90% versus 99.9%; isthmus, 2% versus 46%, 15% versus 60%, and 16% versus 83%.

An evaluation of the incisive nerve block and combination inferior alveolar and incisive nerve blocks in mandibular anesthesia.

The purpose of this study was to measure the degree of anesthesia obtained with the incisive nerve block, the inferior alveolar nerve block and a combination of both injections in mandibular teeth. Using a repeated measures design, 40 subjects randomly received an incisive nerve block, a conventional inferior alveolar nerve block, or a combination inferior alveolar nerve block plus an incisive nerve block using either lidocaine or saline (control), at four successive appointments. The mandibular teeth and contralateral canine (+/- controls) were blindly tested with an Analytic Technology pulp tester at 4-min cycles for 60 min. An 80 reading indicated complete pulpal anesthesia. The incisive nerve block alone did not result in successful pulpal anesthesia in the central, lateral, first, and second molars. It was successful in the first and second premolars but the duration was approximately 30 min. The combination inferior alveolar nerve block plus incisive nerve block was successful in the first and second premolars, and enhanced anesthesia for the laterals and first molars.

Is endodontics losing its identity in our dental schools?

The program presented at the Section on Endodontics of the American Association of Dental Schools Annual Meeting in March 1990 in Cincinnati focused on the issue of identity loss of endodontics in dental schools. Program participants, comprising representatives from various institutions with different educational backgrounds and experiences, were posed a series of questions on the topic. Key issues were discussed and perspectives on the future of the specialty were presented relative to dental school reorganizations and restructuring.

An evaluation of lidocaine hydrocarbonate compared with lidocaine hydrochloride for inferior alveolar nerve block.

The purpose of this study was to measure the degree of anesthesia obtained with 2.2% lidocaine hydrocarbonate, 2.2% lidocaine hydrocarbonate with 1:100,000 epinephrine, and 2% lidocaine hydrochloride with 1:100,000 epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve block. Using a repeated-measures design, 30 subjects randomly received an inferior alveolar injection of each solution over the course of three successive appointments. The first molar, first premolar, lateral incisor, and contralateral canine (control) were blindly tested with an Analytic Technology pulp tester at 3-min cycles for 60 min. Anesthetic success was defined as no subject response to the maximum output (80 reading) of the pulp tester within 16 min and maintenance of this reading for the remainder of the testing period. Although subjects felt numb subjectively, anesthetic success as defined here ranged from 3% to 10% for the plain lidocaine hydrocarbonate; for the lidocaine hydrocarbonate and lidocaine hydrochloride solutions with epinephrine, success ranged from 37% to 63%. We conclude that 2.2% lidocaine hydrocarbonate without vasoconstrictor is not as effective as the other two preparations for inferior alveolar nerve block. The 2.2% lidocaine hydrocarbonate with epinephrine and 2%.

An evaluation of 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 2% mepivacaine with 1:20,000 levonordefrin compared with 2% lidocaine with:100,000 epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve block.

The purpose of this study was to measure the degree of anesthesia obtained with 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 2% mepivacaine with 1:20,000 levonordefrin compared with 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve block. Using a repeated measures design, 30 subjects randomly received an inferior alveolar injection using masked cartridges of each solution at three successive appointments. The first molar, first premolar, lateral incisor, and contralateral canine (control) were blindly tested with an Analytic Technology pulp tester at 3-min cycles for 50 min. Anesthetic success was defined as no subject response to the maximum output of the pulp tester (80 reading) within 16 min and maintenance of this reading for the remainder of the testing period.Although subjects felt numb subjectively, anesthetic success as defined here occurred in 46% to 57% of the molars, in 50% to 57% of the premolars, and in 21% to 36% of the lateral incisors. No statistically significant differences in onset, success, failure, or incidence were found among the solutions. We conclude that the three preparations are equivalent for inferior alveolar nerve block of 50-min duration.