Efficacy of the TuttleNumbNow Intraosseous Method for Pulpal Anesthesia in the Mandibular First Molar: A Prospective, Randomized, Crossover Study.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies on intraosseous (IO) anesthesia as a primary injection have shown high success rates. The TuttleNumbNow (TNN; Orem, UT) is a new primary IO injection technique that has not been scientifically evaluated. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective randomized, crossover study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of the TNN IO technique using the Septoject Evolution needle (Septodont, Saint-Maur-des-Fosses, France) compared with buccal infiltration for pulpal anesthesia in mandibular first molars. METHODS: One hundred four healthy subjects were randomly assigned to 2 treatment groups separated by at least 2 weeks. One set of injections consisted of buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar using 1.8 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine followed by a mock TNN injection distal to the mandibular first molar. The other set of injections was a mock buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar followed by a TNN injection of 1.8 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine distal to the mandibular first molar. Statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: For the mandibular first molar, which had a 42% anesthetic success rate (highest 80 reading) with buccal infiltration compared with 49% with the TNN, no statistically significant difference in success was observed (P = .2115). CONCLUSIONS: The TNN technique has been advocated as an IO injection. However, the inability to deliver anesthetic solution to the cancellous bone resulted in an anesthetic success rate of 49%. The success was statistically similar to a buccal infiltration (42%) and would not provide adequate pulpal anesthesia as a primary injection.

Success of Pulpal Anesthesia Following Buccal Infiltration of the Maxillary First Molar With 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of 4% Articaine With 1:100,000 Epinephrine: A Prospective, Randomized Crossover Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective, randomized crossover study was to compare the peak incidence of success, onset, and incidence over time of pulpal anesthesia in maxillary first molars following a buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL or 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100 000 epinephrine. METHODS: A total of 118 adults received 1.8 mL or 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100 000 epinephrine via buccal infiltration of the maxillary first molar at 2 separate appointments. Electric pulp testing (EPT) of the maxillary first molar was performed over 68 minutes. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the peak incidence of anesthetic success (85% and 92%, respectively) in the maxillary first molar between 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL. The difference in onset times (4.5 min for 1.8 mL vs 4.4 min for 3.6 mL) was not statistically significant. However, the 3.6-mL volume did produce a significantly higher incidence of pulpal anesthesia from minutes 48 to 68 compared with the 1.8-mL volume. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in peak incidence or onset of pulpal anesthesia in the maxillary first molar between 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of articaine with epinephrine. The incidence of pulpal anesthesia was significantly higher with 3.6 mL of articaine at 48 minutes and beyond, but neither volume provided complete pulpal anesthesia for all subjects that lasted at least 60 minutes.

Pain Reduction in Untreated Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis Using Liposomal Bupivacaine (Exparel): A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Trial.

INTRODUCTION: In the treatment of patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, endodontic debridement is a predictable method to relieve pain. However, there are clinical situations in which emergency care cannot be provided immediately. An unexplored treatment option in these cases may be the use of a long-acting anesthetic to reduce pain in untreated irreversible pulpitis. Some medical studies have shown potential for infiltrations of liposomal bupivacaine (Exparel; Pacira Pharmaceuticals, San Diego, CA) to prolong pain relief and reduce opioid use postoperatively. The Food and Drug Administration has approved Exparel only for infiltrations; therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare an infiltration of liposomal bupivacaine versus bupivacaine for pain control in untreated, symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. METHODS: Ninety-five emergency patients received 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine via infiltration or an inferior alveolar nerve block to relieve their initial presenting pain. Patients then randomly received either 4 mL liposomal bupivacaine (13.3 mg/mL) or 4 mL 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine by infiltration. Patients received a diary for the day of the appointment and 3 days postinjection to record soft tissue numbness, pain levels, and analgesic (non-narcotic and narcotic) use. RESULTS: No significant differences (P < .05) were found between the 2 anesthetic formulations for pain or the use of pain medications. A statistically higher level of soft tissue numbness was found on days 1 to 3 for the liposomal bupivacaine group. CONCLUSIONS: Although liposomal bupivacaine had some effect on soft tissue anesthesia, it did not reduce pain to manageable clinical levels in patients presenting with untreated, symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

How Effective Is Supplemental Intraseptal Anesthesia in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis?

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have reported high levels of success with intraseptal injection for various dental procedures but provide limited information on the use of the injection during endodontic treatment. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental intraseptal technique in mandibular posterior teeth diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis when the conventional inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block failed. METHODS: One hundred patients with a diagnosis of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in a mandibular posterior tooth were recruited. Following profound lip numbness after the administration of the conventional IAN block, endodontic treatment was initiated. Patients still experiencing moderate to severe pain during treatment were administered mesial and distal supplemental intraseptal injections using 0.7 mL 4% articaine with 1:000,000 epinephrine administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery unit. Success was defined as the ability to perform endodontic access and instrumentation with mild to no pain. RESULTS: Success with the IAN block was achieved in 25% of patients. Supplemental intraseptal injections provided success in 29% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Supplemental intraseptal injections achieved profound pulpal anesthesia in 29% of patients when the IAN block failed. This low level of success would not provide predictable levels of anesthesia for patients requiring emergency endodontic treatment for symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth.

Anesthetic Success of an Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block and Supplemental Articaine Buccal Infiltration for Molars and Premolars in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine the anesthetic success of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block, and supplemental articaine buccal infiltration after a failed IAN block, in first and second molars and premolars in patients presenting with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. METHODS: As part of 6 studies, 375 emergency patients presenting with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis received 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine via an IAN block. After profound lip numbness, endodontic access and instrumentation were initiated. If the patient felt moderate to severe pain, a supplemental buccal infiltration of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was administered (204 patients), and endodontic treatment continued. Success was defined as the ability to access and instrument the tooth without pain (visual analogue scale rating of 0) or mild pain (visual analogue scale rating less than or equal to 54 mm). RESULTS: IAN block success was 28% for the first molars, 25% for the second molars, and 39% for the premolars. There were no significant differences when comparing molars with premolars. For the supplemental articaine buccal infiltration, success was 42% for the first molars, 48% for the second molars, and 73% for the premolars. There were no significant differences when comparing the molars, but there was a significant difference when comparing the premolars with the molars. CONCLUSIONS: For patients presenting with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, the success rates for the IAN block and supplemental buccal infiltration of articaine of the molars and premolars would not be high enough to ensure profound pulpal anesthesia.

Reversal of pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia by using phentolamine: a prospective randomized, single-blind study.

INTRODUCTION: Phentolamine mesylate has been reported to be an effective local anesthetic reversal agent for soft tissue but has not been studied regarding reversal of pulpal anesthesia. The authors conducted a prospective randomized, single-blind study comparing the reversal of pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia when phentolamine was administered at 30 minutes versus 60 minutes after the administration of an inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block. METHODS: Ninety adult subjects received 2 sets of injections consisting of an IAN block followed by an injection of phentolamine at 30 minutes and a sham injection at 60 minutes or a sham injection given at 30 minutes and a phentolamine injection given at 60 minutes in 2 separate appointments. The authors used an electric pulp tester to test the first and second molars, premolars, and incisors for pulpal anesthesia in 4-minute cycles for 120 minutes. Lip and tongue soft tissue anesthesia was also monitored. RESULTS: Phentolamine significantly (P < .05) reduced duration of both pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia when administered at either 30 or 60 minutes after an IAN block. CONCLUSIONS: Phentolamine would be beneficial for patients who would like to experience a faster return to normal soft tissue function and sensation after the administration of local anesthesia. However, because pulpal anesthesia is also reversed fairly rapidly, phentolamine should be administered at the end of the dental appointment.

Reversal of soft-tissue anesthesia in asymptomatic endodontic patients: a preliminary, prospective, randomized, single-blind study.

INTRODUCTION: Phentolamine has been reported to be an effective local anesthetic reversal agent for soft tissue but has not been studied in endodontics. The purpose of this preliminary, prospective, randomized, single-blind study was to evaluate the reversal of soft-tissue anesthesia using phentolamine in asymptomatic endodontic patients. METHODS: Eighty-five adult subjects having a maxillary or mandibular asymptomatic tooth requiring endodontic therapy received either phentolamine or sham treatment(s) at the end of the endodontic treatment appointment. Soft-tissue anesthesia was monitored by subjects every 15 minutes for 5 hours. Subjects reported postoperative injection site pain and tooth pain using a Heft-Parker visual analog score every 30 minutes for the first 2 postoperative hours and every hour for 3 hours. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in time to return-to-normal sensation for the maxillary lip/cheek and mandibular lip. Subjects who received phentolamine experienced an 88-minute decrease in time to return-to-normal maxillary lip/cheek sensation and a 47-minute decrease in time to return-to-normal mandibular lip sensation. The administration of phentolamine was not significantly more painful than administration of a sham treatment, and patients who received phentolamine did not experience significantly more postoperative pain at the injection site. Postoperative complications were minimal, and no clinically significant adverse reactions to the phentolamine were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Phentolamine would be beneficial for asymptomatic endodontic patients who would like to experience a faster return-to-normal soft-tissue function and sensation after the administration of local anesthesia.