Weekly Folic Acid Is a Convenient and Well-Tolerated Alternative to Daily Dosing in Pediatric Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Methotrexate.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic autoimmune disorder that affects the gastrointestinal tract. Methotrexate is a folate analog immunosuppressant used in the management of pediatric IBD. Daily folic acid supplementation is currently recommended to prevent folate deficiency and reduce the side effects of methotrexate such as nausea, stomatitis, and hepatotoxicity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and adequacy of once-weekly folic acid supplementation in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease patients taking methotrexate. METHODS: In this single-arm observational study, we included subjects aged 2-21 years old with inflammatory bowel disease who were receiving a standard oral methotrexate dose of 10-15 mg/m2 weekly and 800 mcg of folic acid daily. Baseline folate level, blood counts and chemistries, and a symptom questionnaire were completed. Subjects were switched to weekly 800 mcg of folic acid to be taken in conjunction with methotrexate. Monthly phone calls with a standardized questionnaire were used to assess compliance and any change in symptoms. Follow-up blood tests were obtained 6 months after enrollment. Normal folate level was defined as >5.38 ng/mL. RESULTS: Thirty-one subjects were enrolled. Five subjects were withdrawn due to poor compliance or transition to adult gastroenterology. Twenty-one (81%) subjects had Crohn's disease (17 with ileal involvement) and five (19%) had ulcerative colitis. Twelve (39%) subjects were on methotrexate as a combination therapy with a biologic agent. At the 6-month follow-up visit, all subjects had stable folic acid levels (>5.38 µg/L) without macrocytic anemia. Monthly questionnaires found no increased symptoms, and there were no adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Once weekly folic acid supplementation at a dose commonly found in a multivitamin may be sufficient to maintain normal folate levels without the development of adverse symptoms in pediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease on methotrexate therapy.

Is mandibular molar buccal infiltration a mental and incisive nerve block? A randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacies of buccal local anesthetic infiltrations at various sites of the mandible in order to elucidate the mechanism of action of articaine mandibular infiltrations. METHODS: After a power calculation and ethical approval, 22 volunteers received 1.8 mL 4% articaine hydrochloride with 1:100,000 adrenaline as a buccal infiltration at the canine, first, or second molar in a randomized, double-blind, crossover design. The injections at the canine and first molar were considered equidistant from the mental foramen. Responses of the first and second molars, first premolar, and lateral and central incisors were assessed using an electronic pulp tester over a 47-minute period. Volunteers were asked to rate the discomfort of each injection using a visual analog scale. Data were analyzed using repeated measures analysis, McNemar, and Mann-Whitney U testing. RESULTS: Injections at the canine and first molar teeth produced anesthesia in all teeth tested in some volunteers. There was no significant difference between anesthetic success of the first premolar after infiltration at the canine or the first molar. Injection at the second molar failed to produce anesthesia of the incisor teeth. Anesthesia was significantly more likely after injections at an adjacent site. There was no difference in discomfort associated with injections at different sites of the mandible. CONCLUSIONS: Articaine first mandibular molar infiltrations achieve an effect via a combination of modified mental and incisive nerve block and local infiltration. Infiltration at the second molar produces anesthesia of both molar and premolar teeth, primarily via infiltration.

A prospective randomized trial of different supplementary local anesthetic techniques after failure of inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular teeth.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of supplementary repeat inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% lidocaine and epinephrine, buccal infiltration with 4% articaine with epinephrine, intraligamentary injection, or intraosseous injection (both with 2% lidocaine with epinephrine) after failed inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for securing pain-free treatment in patients experiencing irreversible pulpitis in mandibular permanent teeth. METHODS: This randomized clinical trial included 182 patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular teeth. Patients received 2.0 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine as an IANB injection. Patients who did not experience pain-free treatment received randomly 1 of 4 supplementary techniques, namely repeat lidocaine IANB (rIANB), articaine buccal infiltration (ABI), lidocaine intraligamentary injection (PDL), or lidocaine intraosseous injection (IO). Successful pulp anesthesia was considered to have occurred when no response was obtained to the maximum stimulation (80 reading) of the pulp tester, at which time treatment commenced. Treatment was regarded as being successfully completed when it was associated with no pain. Data were analyzed by χ(2) and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: Of the 182 patients, 122 achieved successful pulpal anesthesia within 10 minutes after initial IANB injection; 82 experienced pain-free treatment. ABI and IO allowed more successful (pain-free) treatment (84% and 68%, respectively) than rIANB or PDL supplementary techniques (32% and 48%, respectively); this was statistically significant (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: IANB injection alone does not always allow pain-free treatment for mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis. Supplementary buccal infiltration with 4% articaine with epinephrine and intraosseous injection with 2% lidocaine with epinephrine are more likely to allow pain-free treatment than intraligamentary and repeat IANB injections with 2% lidocaine with epinephrine for patients experiencing irreversible pulpitis in mandibular permanent teeth.

A comparison of the efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine in achieving pulpal anesthesia in maxillary teeth with irreversible pulpitis.

INTRODUCTION: To assess the efficacy of buccal infiltrations of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine in achieving anesthesia in maxillary teeth with irreversible pulpitis. METHODS: This randomized double-blind clinical trial included 100 patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis in maxillary teeth. Patients received 2.0 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine in the buccal sulcus adjacent to the tooth with pulpitis. Before and every 2 minutes up to a maximum of 10 minutes after injection, the response of the test tooth was assessed using an electronic pulp tester. Successful pulp anesthesia was considered to have occurred when no response was obtained to the maximum stimulation (80 reading) of the pulp tester during the test period, at which time treatment commenced. Treatment was regarded as being successfully completed when it was associated with no pain. The time to onset of successful pulp anesthesia was recorded for each test tooth. Injection discomfort was recorded on standard 100-mm visual analog scales (VASs). Data were analyzed by the Chi-square and Student t tests. RESULTS: Fifty patients received articaine and 50 received lidocaine. Seventy-three of the 100 patients achieved pulpal anesthesia within 10 minutes of injection: 38 after articaine and 35 after lidocaine (P = .5). The onset of pulpal anesthesia after articaine and lidocaine buccal infiltrations was similar (mean and standard deviations: 4.9 ± 2.7 minutes vs 5.1 ± 2.4 minutes, respectively; t = 0.2; P = .82). Pain-free treatment was completed in 33 patients after articaine and 29 after lidocaine buccal infiltrations (P = .63). Although articaine buccal injection was significantly more comfortable than lidocaine buccal injection (t = 2.3, P = .026), both were associated with mild discomfort on VAS (means ± standard deviation: 10.8 mm ± 11.7 mm vs 17.5 mm ± 17.6 mm, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in efficacy between 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine in achieving anesthesia in maxillary teeth with irreversible pulpitis after buccal infiltration.

Articaine infiltration for anesthesia of mandibular first molars.

A randomized, controlled trial of 31 healthy volunteers compared 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine buccal infiltration to buccal plus lingual infiltration of the same dose of drug in achieving pulpal anesthesia of mandibular first molar teeth. Data were compared with efficacy of an inferior alveolar nerve block using 2% lidocaine 1:80,000 epinephrine in a cohort of 27 of the volunteers. Anesthesia was determined using electronic pulp testing. Buccal and buccal plus lingual infiltrations of articaine with epinephrine did not differ in efficacy in obtaining pulpal anesthesia for mandibular permanent first molars (p = 0.17). Efficacy of 4% articaine with epinephrine infiltrations for first molar pulp anesthesia was similar to that of an IANB using lidocaine with epinephrine over a 30-minute study period (96 and 80 episodes of no response to maximal stimulation respectively, p = 0.097). Subjective tooth numbness was more common after IANB than buccal infiltration (p = 0.005). The discomfort of buccal infiltration with articaine was volume dependent (p = 0.017) and similar to that of an IANB.

Articaine and lidocaine mandibular buccal infiltration anesthesia: a prospective randomized double-blind cross-over study.

This randomized crossover double-blind trial compared the efficacy of buccal infiltration with 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine (both with 1:100,000 epinephrine) in securing mandibular first molar pulp anesthesia. Injections were given at least 1 week apart in 31 healthy adult volunteers. Electronic pulp testing was undertaken at baseline and at 2 minute intervals until 30 minutes postinjection. A successful outcome was recorded in the absence of pulp sensation on two consecutive maximal pulp tester stimulations (80 muA). 64.5% of articaine and 38.7% of lidocaine infiltrations were successful (p = 0.008). Articaine infiltration produced significantly more episodes of no response to maximum stimulation in first molars than lidocaine (236 and 129, respectively, p < 0.001). Mandibular buccal infiltration is more effective with 4% articaine with epinephrine compared to 2% lidocaine with epinephrine. Both injections were associated with mild discomfort.