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.

Anesthetic efficacy of a primary articaine infiltration and a repeat articaine infiltration in the incisive/mental nerve region of mandibular premolars: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study.

INTRODUCTION: The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, single-blind study to determine the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with a primary infiltration of 1 cartridge of articaine in the incisive/mental nerve region of the mandibular second premolar and to determine the anesthetic efficacy of a repeat articaine infiltration 20 minutes after the primary infiltration. METHODS: One hundred asymptomatic adult subjects randomly received 2 sets of injections consisting of a primary mandibular second premolar infiltration of 1 cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine plus a repeat infiltration 20 minutes later (using the same volume of articaine) or a mock repeat infiltration in 2 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. The authors used an electric pulp tester to test the first molar, premolars, canine, and incisors for anesthesia in 4-minute cycles for 120 minutes. RESULTS: The success rates of the initial infiltrations for the first molar, canine, and incisor teeth ranged from 59% to 19%. The premolar success rates were moderately successful (ie, 80%-87%), but anesthesia declined after 20-25 minutes. The repeat infiltration at 20 minutes significantly increased the success rate (92%-94%) and the duration of pulpal anesthesia for the premolars. CONCLUSIONS: The initial infiltration was not effective in anesthetizing the first molar, canine, or incisor teeth and was only moderately successful in the premolars. Although the repeat infiltration significantly increased the success rate and duration in the premolars, the initial infiltration success rates were not high enough to support the use of this regimen as a combined anesthetic technique.

Efficacy of Ibuprofen and ibuprofen/acetaminophen on postoperative pain in symptomatic patients with a pulpal diagnosis of necrosis.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to determine ibuprofen versus ibuprofen/acetaminophen use for postoperative endodontic pain in symptomatic patients with a pulpal diagnosis of necrosis and an associated periapical radiolucency who were experiencing moderate to severe preoperative pain. We also recorded escape medication use. METHODS: Seventy-one adult patients presenting for emergency endodontic treatment with a symptomatic maxillary or mandibular tooth with a pulpal diagnosis of necrosis, periapical radiolucent area, and moderate to severe pain participated in this study. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups by random assignment and numeric coding. An emergency debridement of the tooth was completed with hand and rotary instrumentation. At the end of the appointment, the patients randomly received capsules of either 600 mg ibuprofen or 600 mg ibuprofen combined with 1000 mg acetaminophen (blinded to both operator and patient). Patients also received a 6-day diary to be completed after anesthesia wore off and every morning for 5 days. Patients were asked to record pain, symptoms, and the number of capsules taken. Patients received escape medication (Vicodin) if the study medication did not control their pain. Postoperative data were analyzed by randomization test and step-down Bonferroni method of Holm. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: There were decreases in pain levels and analgesic use over time for the ibuprofen and ibuprofen/acetaminophen groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups for analgesic use or escape medication use. Approximately 20% of patients in both groups required escape medication to control pain.

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.

A prospective, randomized single-blind study of the anesthetic efficacy of frequency-dependent conduction blockade of the inferior alveolar nerve.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this prospective, randomized single-blind study was to evaluate the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with frequency-dependent conduction blockade of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN). METHODS: Eighty adult volunteers randomly received two IAN blocks: an IAN block followed by continuous electrical stimulation for 3 minutes of the first molar or lateral incisor for six cycles over a time period of 64 minutes; an IAN block followed by mock electrical stimulation using the same cycles. The IAN blocks were administered at two separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart in a crossover design. An electric pulp tester was used to test for anesthesia of the first molar and lateral incisor. Anesthesia was considered successful when two consecutive 80 readings were obtained within 15 minutes, and the 80 reading was recorded through the 60th minute. RESULTS: The anesthetic success rate for the stimulated IAN block was 35% and 48% for the lateral incisor and first molar, respectively. For the mock stimulated IAN, success was 18% for the lateral incisor and 62% for the first molar. There was no significant difference between the two IAN block techniques. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that the stimulation of nerves in the presence of local anesthesia (frequency-dependent nerve block) did not statistically increase the success rate of pulpal anesthesia for an IAN block.

Anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL versus 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a primary buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar.

INTRODUCTION: No study has compared 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in a mandibular buccal infiltration of the first molar. The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, single-blind, crossover study comparing the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a primary infiltration in the mandibular first molar. METHODS: Eighty-six asymptomatic adult subjects randomly received a primary mandibular buccal first molar infiltration of 1.8 mL or 3.6 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in two separate appointments. The authors used an electric pulp tester to test the first molar for anesthesia in 3-minute cycles for 90 minutes after the injections. RESULTS: Compared with the 1.8-mL volume of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, the 3.6-mL volume showed a statistically higher success rate (70% vs 50%). CONCLUSIONS: The anesthetic efficacy of 3.6 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine is better than 1.8 mL of the same anesthetic solution in a primary mandibular buccal infiltration of the first molar. However, the success rate of 70% is not high enough to support its use as a primary injection technique in the mandibular first molar.

Anesthetic efficacy of a combination palatal and buccal infiltration of the maxillary first molar.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blind crossover study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of a combination palatal and buccal infiltration of the maxillary first molar. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a crossover design, 40 subjects received two sets of maxillary first molar infiltrations at two separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. The anesthetic used in this study was 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. One set of infiltrations consisted of a buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL of anesthetic and a palatal infiltration of 0.5 mL of anesthetic. The other set consisted of a buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL of anesthetic and a mock palatal infiltration. The first molar was pulp tested in 4-minute cycles for a total of 60 minutes. Anesthetic success was defined as no subject response to two consecutive 80 readings with an electric pulp tester. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The success rates were 88% for the buccal infiltration and 95% for the buccal plus palatal infiltration. The difference was not statistically significant. The buccal plus palatal infiltration significantly increased the incidence of pulpal anesthesia from 21 minutes through 57 minutes. Although there was an increased incidence of pulpal anesthesia with the combination buccal plus palatal infiltration, anesthesia was not provided for 60 minutes.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of 2% mepivacaine with 1 : 20,000 levonordefrin versus 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine for maxillary infiltrations.

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind crossover study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 2% mepivacaine with 1 : 20,000 levonordefrin versus 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine in maxillary central incisors and first molars. Sixty subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, maxillary central incisor and first molar infiltrations of 1.8 mL of 2% mepivacaine with 1 : 20,000 levonordefrin and 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine at 2 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. The teeth were electric pulp tested in 2-minute cycles for a total of 60 minutes. Anesthetic success (obtaining 2 consecutive 80 readings with the electric pulp tester within 10 minutes) was not significantly different between 2% mepivacaine with 1 : 20,000 levonordefrin and 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine for the central incisor and first molar. However, neither anesthetic agent provided an hour of pulpal anesthesia.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and 4% prilocaine for maxillary infiltrations.

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind crossover study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and 4% prilocaine in maxillary lateral incisors and first molars. Sixty subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, maxillary lateral incisor and first molar infiltrations of 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 1.8 mL of 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and 1.8 mL of 4% prilocaine, at 3 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. The teeth were pulp-tested in 3-minute cycles for a total of 60 minutes. Anesthetic success (ie, obtaining 2 consecutive 80 readings with the electric pulp tester) and onset of pulpal anesthesia were not significantly different between 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and 4% prilocaine for the lateral incisor and first molar. For both lateral incisor and first molar, 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine were equivalent for incidence of pulpal anesthesia. However, neither anesthetic agent provided an hour of pulpal anesthesia. For both lateral incisor and first molar, 4% prilocaine provided a significantly shorter duration of pulpal anesthesia compared with 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine.

Local anesthesia strategies for the patient with a "hot" tooth.

Attaining local anesthesia for the treatment of teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis ("hot" tooth) can be a challenge. This article looks at the strategies a dentist can use to help achieve adequate pulpal anesthesia for the patient, thereby eliminating or reducing treatment pain.

Anesthetic efficacy of articaine for combination labial plus lingual infiltrations versus labial infiltration in the mandibular lateral incisor.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have shown higher success rates when using an articaine formulation versus a lidocaine formulation for buccal mandibular first molar infiltrations. However, there is little information on articaine's effect in mandibular anterior teeth. METHODS: The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, single-blind, crossover study comparing the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with 2 sets of mandibular lateral incisor infiltrations given in 2 separate appointments in 82 adult subjects. One set of infiltrations consisted of an initial labial infiltration of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine plus a lingual infiltration of the same anesthetic and dose. The other set of infiltrations consisted of an initial labial infiltration of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine plus a mock lingual infiltration. The authors used an electric pulp tester to test the lateral incisor for pulpal anesthesia in 2-minute cycles for 60 minutes after the injections. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The labial plus lingual infiltration significantly improved the success rate (no response to 2 consecutive 80 readings with the pulp tester) to 98% when compared with a labial infiltration of a cartridge of the same articaine formulation (76% success). The combination labial and lingual infiltrations did not provide pulpal anesthesia for an hour.

A prospective, randomized single-blind study of the anesthetic efficacy of the inferior alveolar nerve block administered with a peripheral nerve stimulator.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this prospective, randomized single-blind study was to compare the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block administered by using a peripheral nerve stimulator compared with a conventional IAN block by using a cartridge of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. METHODS: Forty-six adult volunteers randomly received a conventional IAN block or an IAN block administered with a peripheral nerve stimulator at 2 separate appointments. An electric pulp tester was used to test for anesthesia of the first molar, first premolar, and lateral incisor in 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained within 15 minutes, and the 80 reading was continuously sustained through the 60th minute. RESULTS: With the peripheral nerve stimulator for the IAN block, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 32%-37%. For the conventional IAN block, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 32%-45%. There was no significant difference between the 2 IAN block techniques. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that the IAN block administered with a peripheral nerve stimulator did not increase the success rate of pulpal anesthesia when compared with a conventional IAN block.

The efficacy of a repeated infiltration in prolonging duration of pulpal anesthesia in maxillary lateral incisors.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown declining rates of pulpal anesthesia over 60-minute periods in patients who have received 1.8 milliliters of 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in the maxillary lateral incisor. METHODS: The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, single-blind, crossover study comparing the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained in 40 adult subjects with two sets of maxillary lateral incisor infiltrations, given in two separate appointments: an initial infiltration of 1.8 mL of 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine plus a repeated infiltration of the same anesthetic and dose given 30 minutes after the initial infiltration, and an initial infiltration of 1.8 mL of 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine plus a mock repeated infiltration given 30 minutes after the initial infiltration. The authors used an electric pulp tester to test the lateral incisor for anesthesia in two-minute cycles for 90 minutes after the injection. RESULTS: The repeated infiltration improved pulpal anesthesia significantly in the maxillary lateral incisor in the period from 37 through 90 minutes postinjection. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: A repeated infiltration of 1.8 mL of 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine given 30 minutes after the initial infiltration significantly improved the duration of pulpal anesthesia in the maxillary lateral incisor.

Articaine for supplemental buccal mandibular infiltration anesthesia in patients with irreversible pulpitis when the inferior alveolar nerve block fails.

The purpose of this prospective study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental buccal infiltration injection of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in mandibular posterior teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis when the conventional inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block failed. Fifty-five emergency patients, diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis of a mandibular posterior tooth, received an IAN block and had moderate to severe pain on endodontic access. An infiltration of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was administered buccal to the tooth requiring endodontic treatment. Success of the infiltration injection was defined as no pain or mild pain on endodontic access or instrumentation. The results showed that anesthetic success was obtained in 58% of the mandibular posterior teeth. We can conclude that when the IAN block fails to provide profound pulpal anesthesia, the supplemental buccal infiltration injection of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine would be successful 58% of the time for mandibular posterior teeth in patients presenting with irreversible pulpitis. Unfortunately, the modest success rate would not provide predictable pulpal anesthesia for all patients requiring profound anesthesia.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of articaine and lidocaine for maxillary infiltrations.

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind crossover study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in maxillary lateral incisors and first molars. Eighty subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, maxillary lateral incisor and first molar infiltrations of one cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine at two separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. In maxillary lateral incisors, articaine exhibited a significantly higher anesthetic success rate of 88% when compared with a 62% success rate with lidocaine. In maxillary first molars, articaine had a similar success rate to lidocaine (78% vs 73%), and there was no significant difference between the two solutions. In conclusion, a maxillary infiltration of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine statistically improved anesthetic success when compared with 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in the lateral incisor but not in the first molar.