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.

Local anaesthesia for pain control in first trimester surgical abortion.

BACKGROUND: Abortions prior to 14 weeks are among the most common outpatient surgical procedures performed on people capable of becoming pregnant. Various methods have been used to control pain; however, many people still experience pain with the procedure. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of local anaesthesia given for pain control during surgical abortion at less than 14 weeks' gestation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (Ovid EBM Reviews), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, POPLINE, and Google Scholar to December 2022 for randomized controlled trials of pain control in surgical abortion at less than 14 weeks' gestation using suction aspiration. We searched the reference lists of related reviews and articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected effectiveness and comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trials that studied local anaesthesia with common local anaesthetics and administration routes given for pain control in surgical abortion at less than 14 weeks' gestation using uterine aspiration. Outcomes included intraoperative pain, patient satisfaction, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We computed mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous variables reporting a mean. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies with 1992 participants met the inclusion criteria. Due to heterogeneity of interventions, we could not pool more than two studies for any outcome. We used 13 mm improvement on a visual/verbal analogue scale to indicate a clinically meaningful difference in pain with surgical abortion (pain with dilation, aspiration, or during procedure). Based on type of pain control, we divided studies into three groups. Paracervical block (PCB) effectiveness trials A 20 mL 1% lidocaine PCB reduced pain with dilation (MD -37.00, 95% CI -45.64 to -28.36), and aspiration (MD -26.00, 95% CI -33.48 to -18.52) compared to a sham PCB (1 RCT, 120 participants; high-certainty evidence). A PCB with 14 mL of 1% chloroprocaine resulted in a slight reduction in pain with aspiration compared to a PCB with normal saline injected at two or four sites (MD -1.50, 95% CI -2.45 to -0.55; 1 RCT, 79 participants; high-certainty evidence). PCB comparative effectiveness trials An ultracaine PCB probably results in little to no clinically meaningful difference in pain during procedure compared to topical cervical lidocaine spray (median 1 point higher, interquartile range (IQR) 0 to 3; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 48 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A 1000 mg dose of intravenous paracetamol probably does not decrease pain as much as ultracaine PCB during procedure (median 2 points higher, IQR 1 to 3; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 46 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Various local anaesthetics in PCB comparative effectiveness trials A 10 mL buffered 2% lidocaine PCB probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with dilation compared to a plain lidocaine PCB (MD -0.80, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.71; 1 RCT, 167 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A buffered lidocaine PCB probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with aspiration compared to plain lidocaine PCB (MD -0.57, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.06; 2 RCTs, 291 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Non-PCB local anaesthesia or PCB technique effectiveness trials PCB: waiting versus no waiting Waiting three to five minutes between 1% lidocaine PCB injection and dilation probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with dilation compared to not waiting (MD -0.70, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.17; 2 RCTs, 357 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Topical cervical analgesia Topical 10 mL 2% lignocaine gel probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with aspiration compared to KY Jelly (MD -0.87, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.14; 1 RCT, 131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In participants who also received a PCB, 20 mg topical cervical lidocaine spray probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain during the procedure compared to two pumps of normal saline spray (median -1 point, IQR -2 to -1; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 55 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Intravenous paracetamol 1000 mg compared to two pumps of cervical lidocaine spray probably does not results in a clinically meaningful difference in pain procedure (median 1 point, IQR -2 to 2; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 48 participants; low-certainty evidence). Non-PCB local anaesthesia or PCB technique comparative effectiveness trials Depth of PCB The evidence suggests that a 3-cm deep PCB probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with aspiration compared to a 1.5-cm deep PCB (MD -1.00, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.91; 2 RCTs, 229 participants; low-certainty evidence). PCB: four sites versus two sites A two-site (4-8 o'clock) 20 mL 1% lidocaine PCB does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with dilation compared to a four-site (2-4-8-10 o'clock) PCB (MD 8.60, 95% CI 0.69 to 16.51; 1 RCT, 163 participants; high-certainty evidence). Overall, participants reported moderately high satisfaction with pain control and studies reported few adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this updated review indicates that a 20 mL 1% plain lidocaine PCB decreases pain during an abortion procedure. Evidence supports forgoing buffering lidocaine and a wait time between PCB injection and cervical dilation. A 1.5-cm deep injection as opposed to a 3-cm deep injection is sufficient. A two-site PCB injection as opposed to a four-site injection has similar effectiveness. Topical cervical anaesthesia (10 mL 2% lignocaine gel or 20 mg topical cervical lidocaine spray) as compared to placebo did not decrease pain based on moderate-certainty evidence, but then when compared to PCB, pain control was similar. Due to this inconsistency in evidence regarding the effectiveness of topical anaesthesia, its routine use is presently not supported. This review did not include studies of pain management with conscious sedation but, based on the results of our prior Cochrane review and the 2022 WHO guidelines, we recommend that the option of combination of pain management using conscious sedation plus PCB and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be offered where conscious sedation is available as it further decreases pain.

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.

Swiss paediatric dentists' preferences and experience on the use of articaine and other local/topical anaesthetics.

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to explore the preference and experience of paediatric dentists based in Switzerland regarding the use of articaine and other local and topical anaesthesia. METHODS: An 18-question survey was developed, piloted, and distributed to the members of the Swiss association of paediatric dentistry (n = 460). The following information were collected: most used local anaesthetic in different age groups, time needed to inject a full ampule, frequency of observed local and systemic side effects, application of topical anaesthetic prior to injection, time waited between application and the injection, and perceived effectiveness of topical anaesthetic. The dentists' responses were analysed with logistic regressions reporting odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) at 5%. RESULTS: The response rate was 37% (n = 168) out of the 460 questionnaires sent, with the responders being predominantly female (67%) and 47-year-old on average. More than 80% of the dentists used articaine in all age groups. 45% of responders took longer than 60 s to inject a full ampule. Local and systemic side-effects were observed by 82% and 28% of respondents respectively, although the nature and the significance of those were not detailed due to the anonymous nature of the questionnaire. Significantly less local adverse effects were seen for older children (p = 0.04) and among dentists with more years of experience (p = 0.01). Most responders applied topical anaesthetic and half of them waited longer than 60 s before injection. CONCLUSIONS: Articaine is a widely used local anaesthetic by the studied group of Swiss paediatric dentists regardless of patient's age. The use of topical anaesthetic before injection is a common practice with good perceived effectiveness.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of articaine in 3-year-old children for dental procedures: a protocol for a clinical randomised control trial in Saudi Arabia.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the wide use of articaine in paediatric dentistry owing to its proven effectiveness and safety, articaine application in children <4 years remains controversial due to a lack of data on the use of articaine in very young children. This trial aims to examine the efficacy and safety of 4% articaine compared with 2% mepivacaine in children 3-4 years old requiring dental extractions. We aim to assess local anaesthetic efficacy and safety through a local anaesthetic infiltration technique for primary teeth requiring dental extraction in children 3 years old. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This prospective, double-blind, randomised clinical trial with two parallel arms aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 4% articaine compared with 2% mepivacaine in 3-year-old children. The trial's outcomes will be assessed by measuring the pain experienced during injection and treatment, evaluating the child's behaviour during the procedure, and monitoring postoperative pain and complications. A total of 200 children will be included in the study, with 100 children in each arm. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved the study protocol and informed consent documents before initiation of the study. The IRB approval was granted by the Qassim Health Cluster under protocol number 607/43/7809. This study was also approved by the Saudi Food and Drug Authority. The study report will be disseminated through scientific forums, including peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Saudi Clinical Trial Registry (22071802) and ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT05839548).

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 ).

Articaine Infiltration Versus Lidocaine Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block for Primary Mandibular Molars: A Double-blind Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of articaine local infiltration with lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for restorative treat- ment of primary mandibular molars (PMMs). Methods: In this double-blind, parallel-design, randomized, controlled, clinical trial, participants were enrolled according to specified inclusion criteria (four to 10 years of age, need of PMM restorations, Frankel four behavior) and randomly assigned into either an articaine or lidocaine group. One investigator administrated all local anesthesia (LA). Nineteen trained and calibrated exam- iners, blinded to LA type, evaluated participants' reactions during LA administration and treatment using Modified Behavioral Pain Scale (MBPS). Participants rated their experiences using Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale (WBFS). The subjects' blood pressure and pulse were recorded throughout procedures. Statistical analysis employed Mann Whitney-U test, repeated measures analysis of variance (P<0.05), and Cohen's kappa. Results: A total of 110 participants (n equals 55 per group; mean age equals 6.42 years; 60 percent males) were enrolled. The mean MBPS rating during LA administration was higher for lidocaine IANB (3.89) compared to articaine infiltration (2.24; P<0.001). The mean MBPS rating through- out treatment was higher for the lidocaine group (2.51) compared to articaine group (1.69; P=0.012). The lidocaine group had a mean WBFS score of 1.64, while for the articaine group WBFS was 0.872 (P=0.089). All physiological measurements were within normal limits with no difference between groups. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that local infiltration with articaine was less distressing upon administration and may be considered safe and effective alternative to lidocaine IANB for restorative treatment in PMMs.

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.

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.

Cambios Hemodinámicos Asociados a Exodoncias de Terceros Molares Inferiores con el Uso de Articaína 4 % y/o Lidocaína 2 %: Una revisión sistemática / Hemodynamic Changes Associated with Lower Third Molar Extractions with the Use of Articaine 4 % and/or Lidocaine 2 %: A systematic Review

La exodoncia de los terceros molares inferiores es uno de los procedimientos clínicos más comunes en el cual el control del dolor mediante el bloqueo anestésico del nervio alveolar inferior, bucal y lingual resulta ser fundament al y la manera más común de hacerlo es mediante la infiltración de soluciones de anestesia local. Entre ellos la lidocaína y articaína son algunos de los más comunes y pueden estar asociado a vasoconstrictores como la epinefrina que puede provocar aumento de la presión arterial y frecuencia cardíaca razón por la cual se hace necesario la monitorización de cambios hemodinámicos durante la cirugía. Describir los cambios hemodinámicos asociados al uso de lidocaína al 2 % y/ o articaína al 4 % en la presión sistólica y diastólica, frecuencia cardiaca y saturación parcial de oxígeno en relación a distintos tiempos operatorios. Se realizó una revisión sistemática en las bases de datos de PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science y Sciencedirect. Se analizaron 7 ensayos clínicos controlados en los que utilizaron articaína al 4 % y/o lidocaína al 2 % con epinefrina al 1:100,000 y/o 1:200,000 en volúmenes de 1,8 a 5,4 mL, en los cuales evaluaron la presión sistólica y diastólica, frecuencia cardiaca y saturación parcial de oxígeno en distintos tiempos de la cirugía. Si bien hubo cambios en PAS, PAD, FC y SPO2, todas se mantuvieron dentro de rangos normales bajo el uso de articaína al 4 % y lidocaína al 2 % con epinefrina 1:100,000 y/o 1:200,000 a volúmenes de 1,8 a 5,4mL medidas a distintos tiempos operatorios.

The extraction of lower third molars is one of the most common clinical procedures in which pain control through anesthetic blockade of the lower alveolar, buccal and lingual nerves turns out to be essential and the most common way to do it is through the infiltration of solutions of local anesthesia. Among them, lidocaine and articaine are some of the most common and may be associated with vasoconstrictors such as epinephrine, which can cause an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, which is why it is necessary to monitor hemodynamic changes during surgery. To describe the hemodynamic changes associated with the use of 2 % lidocaine and/or 4 % articaine in systolic and diastolic pressure, heart rate and partial oxygen saturation in relation to different operative times. A systematic review was carried out in the PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Sciencedirect databases. Seven controlled clinical trials were analyzed in which 4 % articaine and/or 2 % lidocaine were used with epinephrine at 1:100,000 and/or 1:200,000 in volumes of 1,8 to 5,4 mL, in which systolic pressure was evaluated. and diastolic, heart rate and partial oxygen saturation at different times of surgery. Although there were changes in SBP, DBP, HR and SPO2, all remained within normal ranges under the use of 4 % articaine and 2 % lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 and/or 1:200,000 at volumes of 1,8 to 5 .4mL measured at different operative times.

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.

Association Between Single-nucleotide Polymorphisms in Candidate Genes and Success of Pulpal Anesthesia after Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block.

INTRODUCTION: The present study aimed to investigate the possible association between the single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the SCN9A, SCN10A, SCN11A, OPRM1, and COMT genes and the success rate of pulpal anesthesia after inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). METHODS: A total of 70 patients (45 females and 25 males) presenting mandibular molar teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis were included. Saliva samples were collected from the participants before the application of IANB. A standard IANB was performed with 1.8 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Endodontic treatment was initiated 15 minutes after injection, and the patients were asked to report their pain level during the procedure on a 170-mm Heft-Parker visual analog scale. If the patient recorded a pain level of lower than 54 on the visual analog scale (no pain or mild pain), the anesthesia was considered successful. The DNA isolation and genotyping were performed, and the association between rs4286289, rs6746030, rs6795970, rs6801957, rs11709492, rs1799971, rs1799973, rs4680, rs6269, rs4633, and rs740603 SNPs and the success rate of anesthesia was investigated. RESULTS: The anesthesia success rate was significantly lower for the GG genotypes (45%) than the GA and AA genotypes (90%) for rs6795970 in the SCN10A gene. Additionally, the A allele for rs6795970 and the T allele for rs6801957 in the SCN10A gene were significantly associated with higher anesthesia success rates. CONCLUSIONS: SNPs in the SCN10A gene affect the success rate of pulpal anesthesia after IANB.