Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine for gastroscopy: a double-blinded, randomized cross-over study in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVES: The benefits of topical pharyngeal anesthesia for gastroscopy remain under debate. Articaine, a local anesthetic with fast onset and offset of action as well as low systemic toxicity, could be a promising choice for topical anesthesia. The objective of this study was to assess whether topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine is beneficial in sedated gastroscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized double-blinded cross-over study included nine volunteers who underwent two gastroscopies under conscious sedation. One was performed with topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine and the other with placebo. Hemodynamic parameters including autonomic nervous system state were recorded prior to and during the endoscopic procedure. The endoscopist and the volunteer assessed the endoscopy after the examination. RESULTS: Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine resulted in less discomfort during esophageal intubation and higher patient satisfaction with the procedure. Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine did not increase satisfaction or facilitate the procedure as rated by the endoscopist. There were no clinically relevant differences in hemodynamic parameters. CONCLUSION: The use of articaine for topical pharyngeal anesthesia results in less intubation-related discomfort and better satisfaction.

Is it possible to extract primary maxillary molars without palatal injection?: a controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: The absolute necessity of a palatal injection for the extraction of primary maxillary molars has never been explored, despite the fact that it is widely known that children do not tolerate local anesthetic injections into the palatal tissue well. The aim of this study was to compare separately the perception of pain in the absence of palatal injection after anesthesia and maxillary primary molar tooth extraction using different anesthetic solutions and different post-anesthetic waiting times. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-blinded randomized controlled study was conducted in 78 participants (26 patients with palatal anesthesia (the control groups), and 26 patients with 5 min and 26 patients with 8 min post-anesthetic waiting time without palatal anesthesia (the study groups)). Subjective experiences of pain were evaluated separately after anesthesia and tooth extraction using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBS). RESULTS: In terms of VAS scores obtained following administration of anesthesia, there was a statistically significant difference between the groups (p<0.05). VAS pain scores were reported to be lower in the groups without palatal anesthesia than in the groups with palatal anesthesia. No statistically significant difference was observed in VAS and Wong-Baker scores after tooth extraction between the groups with and without palatal anesthesia (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: While the pain reported following administration of anesthesia was found to be higher in the groups receiving palatal anesthesia, no difference was found between the groups in the pain reported after tooth extraction. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Extraction of maxillary primary molars is possible without palatal injection by injecting 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine into the buccal vestibule of the tooth with a waiting time of 5 or 8 min.

Efficacy of articaine anesthesia with needle-free/Comfort-in method and conventional needle injection in dental patients with irreversible pulpitis: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the anesthetic efficacy of articaine with the needle-free/Comfort-in™ method compared to the conventional needle method. To assess pain during anesthesia application, onset of anesthesia and patient`s self-reported quality of life-related to oral health after the dental emergency appointment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This parallel, randomized clinical trial was conducted by a single operator/dentist in the state of Maranhao, northeast of Brazil. Included participants were adult dental patients with one molar (maxillary) or premolar (maxillary or mandibular) tooth diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. The primary outcome was the anesthetic efficacy, measured using a combination of electrical and cold pulp tests (cold + EPT) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes were pain during anesthesia application, onset of anesthesia, and patient`s quality-of-life (measured with the OHIP-14). RESULTS: 62 patients were randomized in the anesthesia needle-free group and Comfort-in group (34.26 ± 10.786 × 33.29 ± 8.399 years old, respectively). The group of patients in the Comfort-in group had 71.0% success. Patients from the Comfort-in group reported statistically lower pain during the anesthesia application than patients from the conventional group (2.13 ± 2.172 × 6.03 ± 3.146 NRS scores, respectively) as well as immediately after the anesthetic procedure. Patients self-reported negative impact in quality of life was similar between groups before (p > 0.05) and after (p > 0.05) the dental emergency. CONCLUSIONS: Comfort-in™ had similar efficacy to the conventional needle method. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This trial showed that it is possible to anesthetize patients with tooth pulpits without using needles to provide comfort mainly to anxious patients.

Efficacy of intraseptal anesthesia obtained by computer-controlled articaine with epinephrine delivery in scaling and root planing.

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of the intraseptal anesthesia (ISA) obtained with three doses of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (4%Ar + Ep) for scaling and root planing (SRP), using a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system (CCLADS). The secondary aims were to compare the clinical anesthetic parameters in relation to different jaw regions and examine the possible influence of sex and smoking habits on them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SRP under ISA obtained with different doses (0.1 ml, 0.2 ml, and 0.3 ml) of 4%Ar + Ep was performed in 360 patients. The success rate, onset, duration of soft tissue anesthesia, and the anesthetic field widths were recorded by pinprick testing. RESULTS: The anesthesia success was high (90-95%). The onset was immediate. The duration and anesthetic field widths showed a dose-related significance, however, without a consistent sex-related or smoking-related significance. The multiple logistic regression analysis revealed a twofold higher chance of anesthesia success by increasing the dose and increased bleeding on probing-related and female sex-reduced probability of anesthesia success. CONCLUSIONS: ISA obtained with 0.3 ml of 4%Ar + Ep delivered by a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system provided a high anesthetic success and the adequate clinical anesthetic parameters for SRP in all regions of both jaws. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: ISA obtained with 4%Ar + Ep provides an effective anesthesia for SRP. The anesthetic success rate may be reduced in the presence of gingival inflammation and in females as well. The study was registered in a Clinical Trials database (NCT04392804, registration date May 9, 2020).

Pulpal anesthesia of maxillary first molars using 4% articaine infiltration in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL (one cartridge) and 3.6 mL (two cartridges) buccal infiltration and buccal plus palatal infiltration of 4% articaine in maxillary first molar teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized single-blind clinical trial was conducted on 45 patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis of maxillary first molars (Trial Registration No: IRCT2015011020238N2_2015). The patients were randomly divided into three groups (n = 15) for buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL articaine plus 1:100,000 epinephrine (group 1), buccal infiltration of 3.6 mL articaine (group 2), and buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL articaine plus palatal infiltration of 0.5 mL articaine (group 3). The pain intensity was measured by the Heft-Parker visual analog scale (VAS) during injection and during access cavity preparation. No pain or mild pain during treatment was considered as successful anesthesia. Data were analyzed by the Tukey's post hoc test. RESULTS: The three groups had a significant difference in frequency of the perceived pain during injection (P = 0.01). A higher volume of 4% articaine and injection of articaine in both buccal and palatal sides provided a significantly higher anesthesia success rate (P = 0.049 and P < 0.01, respectively). The highest success rate was recorded in group 3 (93.33%) followed by group 2 (80%) and then group 1 (53.33%). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the administered volume of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and addition of palatal infiltration to buccal infiltration of articaine can significantly increase the success of anesthesia in maxillary first molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Achieving deep anesthesia in teeth with irreversible pulpitis is a critical parameter in management of patients who are in urgent need of root canal treatments.

Primary and supplementary anesthetic efficacy of a modified two-step buccal infiltration of 4% articaine in mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a modified two-step buccal infiltration (MBI) of 1.7 mL 4% articaine as primary or supplemental anesthesia in mandibular first and second molars diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and eight patients with SIP were randomly assigned to one of three groups (n = 36). They were given an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) of 2% lidocaine with 1:80.000 epinephrine or a primary MBI of 4% articaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine in the IANB and MBI groups, respectively. Patients in the IANB + MBI group received an IANB followed by an MBI. Pain levels during the injection, access cavity preparation, and initial filing were recorded on the Heft-Parker visual analog scale (HP-VAS). No or mild pain (HP-VAS ≤ 54) upon access cavity preparation and initial filing was considered a success. Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: MBI (77.8%) and IANB + MBI (94.4%) had both significantly higher success rates than IANB (50.0%) (P < .001). However, when the Bonferroni adjustment was applied, there was no statistically significant difference between the MBI and IANB + MBI techniques (P = .041 > .017). MBI was associated with significantly less injection pain than IANB (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Both primary and supplemental MBI with 4% articaine were superior to IANB with 2% lidocaine in mandibular first and second molars diagnosed with SIP. Further research may be needed to confirm the findings of this study. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The findings of this study suggest that supplemental or primary MBI can be a clinically viable alternative to IANB, which has a relatively low success rate when managing mandibular molars diagnosed with SIP.

Articaine versus Lidocaine in only buccal infiltration anesthesia for the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth. A prospective split-mouth randomized-controlled clinical study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of a single labial infiltration of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine for the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth without an additional lingual injection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized-controlled, split-mouth clinical study was implemented. Healthy adult patients seeking bilateral extraction of mandibular anterior teeth were included in this study. Teeth extractions were randomly assigned to two equal groups, where one mandibular anterior tooth was extracted using a solitary labial infiltration of either 4% articaine (the study group) or 2% lidocaine (the control group). After 14 days, the other mandibular anterior tooth was extracted using the other local anesthetic agent. The selection of the anesthetic agent injected in the first session was done in a randomized fashion. After 5 min of local anesthetic injection, the tooth was extracted, and each patient was asked to record the intensity of the extraction pain using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were included in the study. The efficacy of a single labial injection for mandibular anterior teeth extraction was established by the fact that none of the patients in the study or control group required re-administration of local anesthesia. The mean VAS for pain control during tooth extraction was 1.16 ± 0.93 for the articaine group and 1.71 ± 0.90 for the lidocaine group. The pain score showed a statistically significant decrease in the articaine group compared to that in the lidocaine group (P = 0.017). CONCLUSION: Although the anesthetic effects of only buccal infiltration of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine for extraction of mandibular anterior teeth were comparable, the use of 4% articaine would have more effective and predictable outcomes. CLINICALTRIALS: ORG: (ID: NCT05223075) 3/2/2022.

Comparison of Efficacy of Lidocaine and Articaine as Inferior Alveolar Nerve Blocking Agents in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background and Objectives: Lidocaine Hydrochloride has been the standard choice for local anesthesia in dentistry and Articaine's unique structure and growing popularity make it a viable alternative. Due to contradictory results in prior research and a scarcity of trials conducted in the Pakistani population, this study aims to compare the anesthetic efficacy of Lidocaine with Articaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Materials and Methods: This double-blinded, randomized controlled trial included 152 patients who were selected by consecutive non-probability sampling. The participants included patients who presented with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth (molars and premolars) and depicted normal apical tissue radiographically. The patients were equally and randomly divided into two groups. The control group received 2% Lidocaine Hydrochloride injections, and the experiment group received 4% Articaine Hydrochloride injections. Participants scored their pain on the HP-VAS both before and after the administration of anesthesia. A value of 54 mm or less on the scale indicated effective anesthesia. The data obtained were analyzed using SPSS. Chi-square test was applied to analyze data for statistical significance. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the efficacy of the two anesthetic agents. During access cavity preparation, Lidocaine demonstrated a success rate of 93%, whereas Articaine exhibited a slightly higher success rate of 97%. During initial instrumentation, the success rates for Lidocaine and Articaine were 72% and 71%, respectively. This suggests that both Lidocaine and Articaine were effective in achieving anesthesia during the dental procedure in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, with Articaine showing a slightly better success rate, although the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions: The anesthetic efficacy of Articaine is similar to that of lidocaine in subjects with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Hence, Articaine can serve as an alternative to Lidocaine for local anesthesia administration in dentistry.

Adverse effects of articaine versus lidocaine in pediatric dentistry: a meta-analysis.

Over the last few years, numerous reports have lauded the efficacy of articaine hydrochloride as a local anesthetic (LA) in dental procedures. Numerous studies have shown that articaine outperforms lidocaine in various aspects of dental treatment, leading to its widespread adoption in both adults and children. Despite the publications of comparative studies, there remains a dearth of systematic reviews examining the adverse effects of articaine versus lidocaine in randomized controlled trials. The aim was to assess the available research on the adverse effects of articaine and lidocaine in pediatric dentistry. A comprehensive search was conducted on Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Embase, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared articaine with lidocaine in pediatric dentistry were included. Methodological quality assessment and risk of bias were determined for each of the included studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to assess the strength of evidence for every research. A total of 333 studies were identified through electronic searches. After conducting primary and secondary assessments, eight studies were included for the final qualitative analysis. We found no difference in the probability of adverse reactions between articaine and lidocaine after treatment in pediatric patients (risk ratio (RR) = 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.54-2.15), p = 0.83). However, a high heterogeneity was reported among the outcomes in the investigated studies (I2 = 57%), and the strength of the evidence was classified as "moderate" based on the GRADE approach. Besides, we found no significant difference in the probability of postoperative pain, postoperative soft tissue injury and edema between articaine and lidocaine in pediatric patients following treatment. There was moderate quality evidence suggesting no difference in the occurrence of adverse events between articaine and lidocaine when used for pediatric dental procedures.

Acute drug-induced immune thrombocytopenia - A work of articaine.

BACKGROUND: Drug-induced immune thrombocytopenia (DITP) is a rare, but serious complication to a wide range of medications. Upon suspicion, one should do a thorough clinical evaluation following proposed diagnostic criteria and seek laboratory confirmation. If confirmed, it is important to ensure avoidance of the drug in the future. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Herein, we describe a young adult male who experienced two bouts of severe thrombocytopenia following dental treatment. The thrombocytopenia was acknowledged due to unexpected hemorrhaging during the procedures. On both occasions, he was exposed to four different drugs, none commonly associated with DITP. After the second episode of severe procedural-related thrombocytopenia, an investigation into the cause was initiated. We describe the clinical approach to elucidate which of the four implicated drugs was responsible for thrombocytopenia and the laboratory work-up done to confirm that the reaction was antibody-mediated and identify the antibody's drug: glycoprotein specificity. An alternative drug was tested both in vivo and in vitro, to identify an option for future procedures. RESULTS: Sequential exposure revealed the local anesthetic substance articaine to induce thrombocytopenia. Laboratory work-up confirmed drug-dependent antibodies (DDAbs) with specificity for the glycoprotein Ib/IX complex, swiftly identified by a bead-based Luminex assay. Further investigations by monoclonal antibody immobilization of platelet antigens assay (MAIPA) revealed a probable GPIb binding site. An alternative local anesthetic, lidocaine, was deemed safe for future procedures. CONCLUSION: Articaine can induce rapid-onset, severe immune-mediated thrombocytopenia causing bleeding complications. A modified bead-based Luminex platelet antigen assay proved a useful addition in the DITP-investigation.

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: The aim of this study was 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 3.4 ml 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 for supplemental anaesthesia throughout treatment; the incidence of need for supplemental anaesthesia was also recorded. Data were statistically analysed using Mann-Whitney U- and Chi-squared (χ2 ) tests. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of anaesthetic failure were calculated. The effect of pre-disposing 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 > .05). The IOP intensity during access cavity preparation and canal instrumentation was similar for both groups (p > .05). IOP intensity was associated with preoperative pain intensity and tooth type (p < .05). Overall anaesthetic success rate was 35.8% for mepivacaine and 41.2% for articaine (p > .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 > .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.

The effect of single buccal infiltration anesthesia of 4% articaine with either 1:100,000 or 1:200,000 epinephrine on pulpal blood flow and anesthesia of maxillary first molars and second premolars in humans.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with either 1:100,000 (EP100) or 1:200,000 (EP200) epinephrine on pulpal blood flow (PBF), pulpal anesthesia and soft tissue anesthesia of maxillary first molars and second premolars in human subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen healthy volunteers with intact maxillary first molars and second premolars received an infiltration of 4% articaine with either EP100 or EP200 at buccal aspect of maxillary first molars. The PBF, pulpal anesthesia and soft tissue anesthesia were assessed with a laser Doppler flowmeter (LDF), an electric pulp tester (EPT) and Aesthesiometer II, respectively. RESULTS: Articaine (4%) with either EP100 or EP200 produced PBF reduction in maxillary first molars (injected teeth) by 68.09 and 69.83%, and produced PBF reduction in second premolars (adjacent teeth) by 76.81 and 75.02%, respectively at 15 min post injection. Duration of PBF returned to baseline was 159.00 ± 21.06 (EP100) and 159.00 ± 31.97 (EP200) min in the molars, and 161.00 ± 20.02 (EP100) and 159.00 ± 25.86 (EP200) min in the premolars. The onset of pulpal anesthesia was 2.80 ± 1.26 (EP100) and 3.07 ± 1.28 (EP200) min in the molars, and 2.13 ± 0.52 (EP100) and 2.40 ± 0.83 (EP200) min in the premolars; the duration of pulpal anesthesia was 74.53 ± 24.16 (EP100) and 76.27 ± 34.03 (EP200) min in the molars, and 82.53 ± 31.03 (EP100) and 75.60 ± 37.17 (EP200) min in the premolars. Buccal tissue anesthesia was found in both teeth (100%), but palatal anesthesia was achieved by 13.33% in the premolars and 6.67% in the molars for each solution. CONCLUSIONS: Single buccal infiltration to maxillary first molar produced PBF reduction and successful pulpal anesthesia, evaluated by EPT, in both first molar and second premolar. This anesthetic technique also produced high success of buccal tissue anesthesia, but demonstrated very low success for palatal tissue anesthesia. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Single buccal infiltration to maxillary first molar is potent enough for pulpal and buccal tissue anesthesia, except palatal tissue anesthesia, in both first molar and second premolar.

Efficacy of Articaine vs Lignocaine for infiltration anaesthesia during primary molar extractions.

Objectives: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate if articaine has better efficacy as compared to lignocaine when used for infiltration anaesthesia for primary molar extractions. Methods: The electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, BioMed Central, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar were searched up to August 2020. Randomized controlled trials on paediatric patients comparing the infiltration of articaine with lignocaine for extraction of primary molar were included. Pain of extraction and successful palatal/lingual anaesthesia with single buccal infiltration was evaluated. Results: Six studies were included. We found no difference in pain scores when comparing singular buccal infiltrations of articaine and lignocaine for primary molar extractions. A meta-analysis of extraction pain scores from three studies indicated no statistically significant difference between buccal infiltration of articaine vs combined buccal and palatal/lingual infiltration of lignocaine. Comparing buccal with palatal/lingual infiltration of both articaine and lignocaine with data from three studies, articaine was found to significantly reduce pain scores. Conclusion: Our review encompassing a limited number of studies suggests that single buccal infiltration of articaine may have a role in primary molar extractions. Articaine may have a better anaesthetic effect compared to lignocaine but the difference may not be clinically relevant.

EFFICACY OF 4% ARTICAINE BUCCAL INFILTRATION VERSUS INFERIOR ALVEOLAR NERVE BLOCK FOR MANDIBULAR MOLARS WITH SYMPTOMATIC IRREVERSIBLE PULPITIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the anesthetic efficacy of buccal infiltration (BI) using 4% articaine vs 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched using MESH terms and specific keywords. Included articles were Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs), which compared 4% articaine BI vs conventional IANB in terms of the efficacy of pulpal anesthesia and success rate. The quality assessment of included studies was done according to the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Studies were quantitatively assessed using fixed or random effect models. RESULTS: Out of 756 articles, 5 RCT studies were included with a total number of 500 patients: 231 in 4% articaine BI group, 150 in 2% lidocaine IANB group, and 119 in 4% articaine IANB group. Our meta-analysis results showed that patients anesthetized with 4% articaine BI had a similar success rate compared to 2% lidocaine IANB [pooled RD: 0.14 (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.29); P = .08]. Similarly, there was non-significant difference when compared to 4% articaine IANB [RD:-0.01 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.11; P = .86)]. Patients anesthetized with 4% articaine BI presented comparable pain scores compared to IANB (4% articaine or 2% lidocaine) [pooled MD: -0.14 (95% CI, -0.38 to 0.11); P = .27]. Regarding quality assessment, 3 studies were considered to have a low risk of bias, one study has an unclear risk of bias, and one study has a high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: 4% articaine BI showed comparable results in terms of pain relief and success rate in comparison with 2% lidocaine IANB or 4% articaine IANB. However, due to the limited number and small sample size of included studies, these findings should be considered carefully, and further studies are required to confirm our findings.

BUCCAL INFILTRATION WITH 4% ARTICAINE MAY BE AN ALTERNATIVE OPTION TO INFERIOR ALVEOLAR NERVE BLOCK WITH 2% LIDOCAINE FOR PULP THERAPY IN PRIMARY MANDIBULAR MOLARS.

ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: Can 4% Articaine Buccal Infiltration Replace Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block (IANB) with 2% Xylocaine for Pulp Therapy in Primary Mandibular Molars? A Systematic Review. Sunny P Tirupathi, Srinitya Rajasekhar, Mayuri Ganesh, Abhishek Vamshi, David Tyro, Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2021;14(3):420-425. SOURCE OF FUNDING: The authors did not state any funding support. TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN: Systematic review.

The effect of pre-operative submucosal administration of dexamethasone, tramadol, articaine on the success rate of inferior alveolar nerve block on mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: A randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial.

AIM: To establish the effects of submucosal tramadol, dexamethasone and articaine on the success of inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) during root canal treatment of mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP). METHODOLOGY: In this randomized double-blind, controlled clinical trial, 120 patients with the diagnosis of SIP in their mandibular first or second molars were included and randomly divided into four groups (n = 30). The control group received normal saline and three experimental groups received a single dose of dexamethasone (8 mg/2 mL), or tramadol (100 mg/2 mL) or articaine (4% / 2 mL). The pre-operative pain levels of the patients were measured with the Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (HP VAS). All patients received standard IANB of 4% articaine with 1:200000 epinephrine. Following the observation of lip numbness, submucosal injections were administered into the mucobuccal fold adjacent to the mandibular molars. After 15 min, standard root canal treatment was initiated, and the pain intensity levels recorded from the access cavity preparation to pulp extirpation were measured with HP VAS. The duration of the anaesthesia was also evaluated. The experimental groups were compared using one-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis H-test. The groups that were significantly different were compared pairwise using the Tukey Multiple Comparison test. The Chi-square test was used to compare the categorical variables. RESULTS: The submucosal administration of articaine significantly increased the success rate to 63% in comparison with the control group that received submucosal saline (p < .05). The success rate of pulpal anaesthesia was 37% in the control group, 57% in the tramadol group and 47% in the dexamethasone group, with no significant difference in the success rate among these groups. In the dexamethasone group, the duration of the anaesthetic effect of IANB was significantly longer than those in the other groups (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with SIP, pre-operative submucosal administration of articaine increased the success rate of IANB, while administration of dexamethasone increased the duration of anaesthesia. These agents can be used in cases where effective anaesthesia cannot be obtained during root canal treatments.

A meta-analysis on the efficacy of the ropivacaine infiltration in comparison with other dental anesthetics.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the clinical efficacy and safety profile of ropivacaine in comparison with other dental anesthetics in different clinical conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This meta-analysis was registered in the National Institute for Health Research PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020205580). PubMed and Scholar Google were consulted to identify clinical trials using ropivacaine in comparison with other local anesthetic drugs for any dental procedure. Articles comparing ropivacaine and other dental anesthetics were assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Data from reports without a high risk of bias were extracted (anesthetic and adverse effects) and analyzed using the Review Manager Software 5.3. for Windows and the Risk Reduction Calculator. RESULTS: Ropivacaine produces a longer anesthetic time when compared with lidocaine/adrenaline (n = 260; p = 0.00001) and similar anesthesia than bupivacaine (n = 190). CONCLUSIONS: Data of this study indicate that ropivacaine infiltration produces a longer anesthetic time when compared with lidocaine and articaine but not when compared to bupivacaine in dental procedures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Ropivacaine was more effective than lidocaine for dental anesthesia. For this reason, the manufacture of a ropivacaine dental cartridge with a suitable concentration could be an important advancement for clinical practice.

Buffered 2% articaine versus non-buffered 4% articaine in maxillary infiltration: randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This randomized, triple-blind, crossover clinical trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy, onset, length of pulp and soft tissue anesthesia, and pain during injection of 2% buffered articaine and 4% non-buffered articaine solutions. METHODS: Each volunteer received two maxillary supraperiosteal anesthesia infiltrations in canine area. The infiltrations were performed at two different sessions using a different local anesthetic solution for each session, and the anesthetic injection speed was always 1 mL/min. The assessment of the onset and length of pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia was performed with the pulp electrical test "pulp tester" and the esthesiometer kit, respectively. Volunteers marked pain during injection on a visual analog scale (VAS). The anesthetics solutions pH was evaluated through the pH meter equipment. RESULTS: There was no difference between the two anesthetic solutions (onset of soft tissue anesthesia, p = 0.5386; length of soft tissue anesthesia, p = 0.718; onset of pulpal anesthesia, p = 0.747; length of pulpal anesthesia, p = 0.375), except for pain during the injection which was lower when buffered 2% articaine was used (p = 0.001) and the pH. The pH analysis revealed that the solutions differed from one another (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The 2% buffered articaine solution provided the same anesthetic properties then 4% unbuffered articaine with a great reduction in pain during injection. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The possibility of use 2% buffered articaine solution instead of 4% articaine maintaining the same anesthetic properties with a great reduction in pain during injection and half of the anesthetic salt concentration.

Pharmacokinetics, efficacy and convulsive dose of articaine hydrochloride in goat kids.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the pharmacokinetics, efficacy and convulsive dose of articaine hydrochloride in goat kids. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental prospective study. ANIMALS: A total of 18 (n = 6 animals per experiment) male Saanen goat kids (2-4 weeks old). METHODS: The study consisted of three experiments. The first determined the pharmacokinetics of articaine following intravenous administration of articaine hydrochloride (8 mg kg-1). The second experiment investigated the anaesthetic efficacy and pharmacokinetics following cornual nerve block using 1.5% articaine hydrochloride. Anaesthesia of horn buds was evaluated using the response to pinprick test. Non-compartmental analysis was used. The final experiment determined the convulsive dose of articaine and its corresponding plasma concentration following intravenous infusion of articaine hydrochloride (4 mg kg-1 minute-1). Data are shown as mean ± standard deviation. RESULTS: The mean terminal half-life (t1/2λz), mean volume of distribution at steady state (Vdss) and mean plasma clearance (CL) of articaine following intravenous administration were 0.66 hour, 3.81 L kg-1 and 5.33 L hour-1 kg-1, respectively. After cornual nerve block, the mean maximum plasma concentration of articaine was 587 ng mL-1 at 0.22 hour and its mean t1/2λz was 1.26 hours. Anaesthesia of horn buds was observed within 4 minutes following cornual nerve block. The mean dose required to produce convulsions was 16.24 mg kg-1 and mean convulsive plasma concentrations of articaine and articainic acid were 9905 and 1517 ng mL-1, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous administration of 8 mg kg-1 of articaine hydrochloride did not cause any adverse effects. Pharmacokinetic data suggest that articaine was rapidly eliminated and cleared. Cornual nerve block using 1.5% articaine hydrochloride alleviated the response to the acute nociceptive stimulus during disbudding. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Articaine hydrochloride appears to be a safe and effective local anaesthetic for disbudding in goat kids.

[Local anesthesia in children younger than 4 years in dentistry: state of the question]. / Mestnoe obezbolivanie u detei do 4 let v stomatologii: sostoyanie voprosa.

The article is a review of modern literature and an analysis of the legal framework regarding the use of local anesthetics in children under 4 years of age. There is a discussion of the validity of the off-label principle. In the domestic and foreign literature, there are publications highlighting the use of drugs based on 4% articaine in children under 4 years old, despite age-related contraindications according to the instructions. It is necessary to pay special attention to the regulatory status of the instructions for the medical use of the medicinal product. Summarizing the presented arguments, we can talk about the available spectrum of clinical studies, meta-analyzes and RCT data on the use of articaine in dental practice in children under 4 years of age, which indicates its effectiveness and is considered a safe alternative to lidocaine for use. in children of all ages.