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.

Buffered 2% articaine in buccal infiltration of mandibular molars: a randomized triple-blind clinical trial.

This crossover study aimed to compare the anesthetic effects of buffered 2% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine with that of non-buffered 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine. Forty-seven volunteers were administered two doses of anesthesia in the buccal region of the second mandibular molars in two sessions using 1.8 mL of different local anesthetic solutions. The onset time and duration of pulp anesthesia, soft tissue pressure pain threshold, and the score of pain on puncture and burning during injection were evaluated. The operator, volunteers, and statistician were blinded. There were no significant differences in the parameters: onset of soft tissue anesthesia (p = 0.80), duration of soft tissue anesthesia (p = 0.10), onset of pulpal anesthesia in the second (p = 0.28) and first molars (p = 0.45), duration of pulp anesthesia of the second (p = 0.60) and first molars (p = 0.30), pain during puncture (p = 0.82) and injection (p = 0.80). No significant adverse events were observed. Buffered 2% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine did not differ from non-buffered 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine considering anesthetic success, safety, onset, duration of anesthesia, and pain on injection.

Survey investigation of articaine use in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Local anesthesia is an essential component of dentistry, but there is limited quantifiable understanding of what techniques and local anesthetic solutions are used by practicing dentists. Use of the local anesthetic articaine has been highly debated in dentistry regarding its efficacy and risks for paresthesia. The aims of this study were to expand the knowledge of local anesthesia practices of dentists in the United States through a large-scale survey and associate potential influencing factors regarding articaine use specifically. METHODS: The 23-item survey was sent to 10,340 practicing dentists in the United States, gathering demographic data and local anesthesia approaches and concerns. Statistical analysis consisted of descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 1,128 dentists completed the survey. Previous experience with articaine was reported by 97.6% of respondents, with 3.3% no longer using articaine. Sixty percent of respondents indicated using articaine for most local anesthetic injections administered. Multivariable regression analysis found those reporting to use articaine for all local anesthetic injections involving vasoconstrictors were more likely to be male (odds ratio, 1.59; P = .002) or general dentists (odds ratio, 1.63; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Articaine has a perceived benefit to practitioners as most respondents reported using articaine as their primary local anesthetic. A practitioner's sex and type were found to affect the profile of use of articaine. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Assembling evidenced-based local anesthesia practices would be beneficial to ensure US practitioners are more standardized in administering local anesthetics, particularly articaine, in the safest and most efficacious way.

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.

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.

Comparative study of articaine 4% versus lidocaine 2% in the local anesthesia of permanent mandibular first molars affected by MIH: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The current study compares articaine 4% with lidocaine 2% in terms of injection pain and effectiveness of anesthesia when treating permanent mandibular first molars (PMFMs) affected by molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH). In addition to comparing the complications of local anesthesia for both solutions. METHODS: The sample included 20 children. Each child was randomly assigned to either articaine 4% or lidocaine 2% in their first session with the other solution being used at the subsequent session. Injection pain and the effectiveness of anesthesia were assessed using the Wong-Baker Faces® Pain Rating Scale and the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) scale. Parents were asked to report any complications of local anesthesia. The Wilcoxon-matched pairs signed-rank test was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Patients experienced greater pain when receiving articaine 4% injections according to both scales, differences were statistically significant when using the Wong-Baker Faces® Pain Rating scale (p < 0.05). Whereas, the FLACC scale did not show such differences (P > 0.05). Although there were no significant differences between the two solutions regarding the effectiveness of local anesthesia according to both scales (P > 0.05), articaine 4% was clinically found to be more effective than lidocaine 2%. No complications of local anesthesia were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Articaine 4% injection was more painful than lidocaine 2%. However, both solutions were effective in anesthetizing PMFMs affected by MIH and without anesthetic complications in the studied sample. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial, NCT05200884, ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05200884 ).

Buffered Versus Nonbuffered Local Anesthetics and Local Pain Scores in Upper Eyelid Blepharoplasty: Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: This split-face study aimed to see whether different types of local anesthetics or their buffered/nonbuffered combinations produce lower pain scores in upper eyelid blepharoplasty. METHODS: The study involved 288 patients, randomly divided into 9 groups: 1) 2% lidocaine with epinephrine-Lid + Epi; 2) 2% lidocaine with epinephrine and 0.5% bupivacaine (1:1)-Lid + Epi + Bupi; 3) 2% lidocaine with 0.5% bupivacaine (1:1)-Lid + Bupi; 4) 0.5% bupivacaine-Bupi; 5) 2% lidocaine-Lid; 6) 4% articaine hydrochloride with epinephrine-Art + Epi; 7) buffered 2% lidocaine/epinephrine with sodium bicarbonate (SB) in a 3:1 ratio-Lid + Epi + SB; 8) buffered 2% lidocaine with SB in a 3:1 ratio-Lid + SB; 9) buffered 4% articaine hydrochloride/epinephrine with SB in a 3:1 ratio-Art + Epi + SB. Following the injection of the first eyelid and a 5-minute period of soft pressure on the injection site, patients were asked to rate their pain level on the Wong-Baker Face Pain Rating Visual Analogue Scale. Rating of the pain level was repeated 15 and 30 minutes following anesthetic administration. RESULTS: The lowest pain scores at the first time point were observed in Lid + SB when compared with all of the other groups ( p < 0.05). At the final time point, significantly lower scores were also observed in Lid + SB, Lid + Epi + SB, and Art + Epi + SB when compared with the Lid + Epi group ( p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: These findings could help surgeons select an appropriate combination of local anesthetics, particularly in patients with lower pain threshold and tolerance because buffered combinations of local anesthetics produce significantly lower pain scores compared with nonbuffered solutions.

The potential of articaine as new generation of local anesthesia in dental clinics: A review.

As a new drug for local dental anesthesia, articaine has become popular in the clinic in recent years. In this review, we describe the development of articaine, explain its mechanism of action, compare its efficacy with that of other commonly used local anesthetics in dental treatment, and summarize the application of articaine in special populations. In conclusion, the anesthetic efficacy of articaine in clinical dental treatment is better than that of lidocaine, and its safety is not statistically different from that of lidocaine. In particular, articaine has several advantages and can be selected flexibly for clinical use. Atecaine has great potential for wide application in dental clinics in the near future.

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.

Articaine use does not routinely eliminate the need for palatal injections for primary maxillary molar extractions: a randomized cross-over clinical trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine versus routine buccal and palatal injections of 2% lidocaine during bilateral extraction of maxillary primary molars. METHODS: Thirty healthy children aged 6-9 years old requiring bilateral extraction of maxillary primary molars were enrolled into the trial. Randomization was performed in two steps. Routine buccal and palatal infiltrations were administered using 2% lidocaine in the control side. Four percent articaine was used for single buccal infiltration in the intervention side. WBFP scale (Wong-Baker FACES Pain scale) was employed for subjective assessment of pain. For objective evaluation of pain, FLACC scale (Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability) and physiological parameters of blood pressure and pulse rate were recorded. RESULTS: Analyses did not show any significant differences in blood pressure, pulse rate, and FLACC scale between groups (P value > 0.05). However, statistically lower WBFP scores were observed in articaine group as compared to lidocaine group (P value < 0.05); the difference was less than one unit which is not clinically considerable. CONCLUSION: Single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine can be administered as an alternative for conventional infiltration of 2% lidocaine to avoid fear or uncooperative behavior of the child patient. However, the assessment of palatal tissue anesthesia is quite necessary before the procedure is initiated. In case of failure in achieving palatal anesthesia, a palatal injection should be given.

Do Computerized Delivery Systems Promote Less Pain and Anxiety Compared to Traditional Local Anesthesia in Dental Procedures? A Systematic Review of the Literature.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to assess whether the use of computerized devices to deliver local anesthesia results in less pain and anxiety compared to traditional anesthesia in adult dental procedures. METHODS: This review was registered at PROSPERO (CRD 42021265046), based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and was structured according to the PICO strategy. The studies were selected based on eligibility criteria, and data were collected by 1 author and reviewed by another. RESULTS: Nine of the 10 studies included were randomized controlled trials. Differences related to pain and anxiety were observed, which favored computerized techniques; however, caution should be exercised when interpreting these results due to differences in assessment methods. The studies used different local anesthetics, including 2% lidocaine, 4% articaine, or 3% mepivacaine with epinephrine diluted 1:80,000 to 1:200,000. A total of 560 patients were evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized anesthesia devices yielded better results than conventionally delivered anesthesia after qualitative evaluation. Nevertheless, conventional anesthesia is widely used, safe, and effective. Due to the heterogeneity among the included studies, it is strongly recommended that new randomized clinical trials using well-defined methodologies be performed to improve the quality of evidence regarding this topic.

[Comparative analysis of 2% and 4% articaine solution efficacy and safety for the local anesthesia]. / Sravnitel'nyi analiz primeneniya 2% i 4% rastvora artikaina pri in"ektsionnoi mestnoi anestezii.

AIM: To determine the functional diagnostics criteria for predicting the effectiveness of using 2% and 4% solutions articaine without vasoconstrictor and with epinephrine content of 1:200.000. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study involved 357 patients (193 women and 164 men) aged 20 to 35 years. with the presence of intact single-rooted and multi-rooted teeth without periodontal pathology without pronounced general somatic pathology, and with a low level of situational anxiety according to the Spielberger-Khanin scale. All the patients received injection anesthesia by the infiltration method of 2% and 4% articaine solution without vasoconstrictor or with epinephrine concentration of 1:200.000. The effectiveness of local anesthesia was assessed by recording functional parameters (electrosensitivity threshold test and hemomicrocirculation) of the pulp of intact single-root and multi-root teeth before anesthesia, 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60 minutes after local anesthesia. The safety of the anesthesia was determined by continuous monitoring of the patient's hemodynamic parameters: blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation before anesthesia and within 60 minutes after. RESULTS: Articaine solution 2% with epinephrine concentration of 1:200.000 used for infiltration or modified periodontal anesthesia resulted in pulp electrosensitivity threshold growth by 95.93% and 93.58%, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in hemodynamic values between both study groups. CONCLUSION: Analysis of the data obtained showed the effectiveness and safe anesthesia with drugs based on 2% articaine with an epinephrine concentration of 1:200.000.

Can buccal infiltration of articaine replace traditional inferior alveolar nerve block for the treatment of mandibular molars in pediatric patients?: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if buccal articaine infiltration can be used as an alternative to standard inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for treating mandibular molars in pediatric patients. Therefore, this study aimed to pool evidence to compare the efficacy of buccal infiltration of articaine vs IANB with lignocaine for pediatric dental procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the two techniques in pediatric patients and reporting the success of anesthesia and/or pain during treatment. PRISMA guidelines were followed. RESULTS: Seven RCTs were included. Pooled analysis of five studies indicated no statistically significant difference in the success rates of the two anesthetic techniques (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.13, 7.96; I2=69%, p=0.98). Meta-analysis of data from the four studies demonstrated no statistically significant difference in pain during the procedure with buccal infiltration of articaine or IANB with lignocaine (SMD: 0.62; 95% CI: -1.37, 0.12; I2=88%, p=0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that buccal infiltration of articaine is a viable alternative to IANB with lignocaine in pediatric patients for treating mandibular molars. Based on the confidence intervals, there may be a tendency of higher success rates with buccal infiltration of articaine.

[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.

[Preventive analgesia for the improvement of local anesthesia efficacy in treatment of acute pulpitis in molars]. / Ispol'zovanie preventivnoi anal'gezii dlya povysheniya effektivnosti mestnogo obezbolivaniya pri lechenii ostrykh pul'pitov molyarov.

THE AIM OF THE STUDY: Was the assessment of the efficacy of using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug Ketorol Express as a preventive analgesia in the treatment of acute pulpitis in molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study comprised 128 individuals, 76 (59.4%) women and 52 (40.6%) men. The mean age was 37.4 years. Two different visual-analog scales were used to evaluate the effectiveness of pain relief and the general well-being of the patient and the doctor. THE RESULTS: Of the study proved that the preventive analgesia with Ketorol Express at a dosage of 20 mg 15 minutes before local anesthesia with 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:200 000 in patients diagnosed with acute pulpitis of molars was effective since local anesthesia high effectiveness, absence of necessity for alternate anesthesia were registered by patients, which coincided with the dentist's opinion. CONCLUSION: Preventive analgesia with Ketorol Express improves the efficacy of local anesthesia in the treatment of acute pulpitis in molars.

Comparison of the efficacy of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 and 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 buccal infiltration for single maxillary molar extraction: a double-blind, randomised, clinical trial.

The present study was designed to compare the efficiency of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 and 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 in providing adequate anaesthesia for maxillary molar extraction with buccal infiltration only. In this randomised, double-blind clinical trial, 139 patients who needed maxillary molars extracting were enrolled. Individuals were randomly divided into two groups of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 treated by buccal infiltration without palatal injection and 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 treated with the same method. Then, teeth were extracted and the pain assessed. During the extraction of teeth, 90.63% of patients in the lidocaine-treated group and 36% of patients in the articaine-treated group experienced pain (p<0.0001). In other words, the rates of successful anaesthesia with lidocaine and articaine buccal infiltration were 9.38% and 64%, respectively. Despite the better performance of articaine, it seems that some factors such as bone thickness and anatomical variations among individuals, besides the condition of the tooth, affects articaine's level of efficiency in each case.

Local Anesthetic Usage Among Dentists: German and International Data.

The aim of this study was to analyze the use of dental local anesthetics in Germany compared with international data. The type and distribution of dental local anesthetics and added vasoconstrictors based on a representative sample of German dentists itemized over a period of 7 years (2011 to 2017) were evaluated and statistically analyzed. The results were compared with international dental local anesthetic consumption data published since 2005. With a consistent market share of nearly 98%, articaine was the first-line local dental anesthetic agent in Germany. During the investigation period, German dental local anesthetics with epinephrine 1:200,000 had ∼50% market shares, whereas formulations with epinephrine 1:100,000 had 40% to 45% market shares. Articaine, with market shares between 38% and 81%, was also the preferred anesthetic agent in various other countries, with the notable exceptions of the United Kingdom and the United States, where lidocaine was the preferred local anesthetic agent. Epinephrine was the preferred vasoconstrictor internationally, similar to Germany. The larger market share of higher concentrated epinephrine 1:100,000 was remarkable, considering the increasing number of medically compromised patients. Increased consideration for using agents with reduced dosages of epinephrine (1:200,000) is generally recommended.

[Comparative effectiveness of periodontal methods of anesthesia in the treatment of dental caries]. / Kliniko-funktsional'noe issledovanie effektivnosti i bezopasnosti primeneniya parodontal'nykh sposobov obezbolivaniya pri lechenii kariesa zubov.

AIM: The analysis of the criteria for predicting the effectiveness and safety of the use of periodontal anesthesia methods in the treatment of dental caries was carried out. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study involved 78 patients: 41 women and 37 men aged from 25 to 56 years without severe somatic pathology, who needed treatment for dental caries. Intraligamental and modified periodontal anesthesia using a 4% articaine solution with different concentrations of vasoconstrictor were used as methods of anesthesia. The «method of the local injection anesthesia of the tooth pulp evaluating¼ was used during the modified periodontal and intraligmental anesthesia which determines the criteria for predicting the effectiveness and safety of the planned anesthesia and which is based on determining the functional parameters of the tooth pulp such as electrical excitability and microcirculation. RESULTS: The obtained results demonstrated the high efficiency and safety of the modified periodontal anesthesia with 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:200 000, which is easier to use and does not require specialized equipment. CONCLUSION: Modified periodontal anesthesia is safe and effective for the treatment of dental caries.

The Efficacy of 4% Articaine Versus 2% Lidocaine in Inducing Palatal Anesthesia for Tooth Extraction in Different Maxillary Regions.

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to ascertain the efficacy of buccal injection of articaine compared to lidocaine in inducing palatal anesthesia in different maxillary regions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This double-blinded, randomized clinical trial included 300 patients who referred for extraction of 1 maxillary tooth. The patients were categorized into 3 strata according to the extraction area (anterior, premolar, molar), and then randomly assigned to 2 groups based on the administered medication. The first group received buccal infiltration by 0.6 mL of 2% lidocaine, whereas the second group was buccally administered using 0.6 mL of 4% articaine. After a waiting period of 2 minutes, the failure or success in achieving palatal anesthesia was assessed by the instrumentation technique. In cases of failed anesthesia, an additional 0.6 mL of the same anesthetic was given, and the procedure was repeated if palatal anesthesia was not attained after a 2-minute delay. If pain remained 2 minutes after the third injection, a supplemental palatal infiltration was administered and the extraction was attempted. RESULTS: The success rate of buccal infiltration in achieving palatal anesthesia was 82.7% in the articaine group and 1.3% in the lidocaine group. There was a significant difference in the success rate and drug volume required to induce palatal anesthesia between the 2 groups (P < .001), but no significant difference was found between different maxillary regions, using either of the medications (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Articaine can be considered as a suitable alternative to lidocaine for eliminating painful palatal infiltration in the extraction of maxillary teeth.