Comparison of 4% articaine with epinephrine (1:100,000) and without epinephrine in inferior alveolar block for tooth extraction: double-blind randomized clinical trial of anesthetic efficacy.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this clinical prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with epinephrine (1:100,000) and without epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia for extractions of mandibular teeth. STUDY DESIGN: Eighty-eight patients received intraoral inferior alveolar nerve blocks using 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (n = 41; group 1) or without epinephrine (n = 47; group 2) for extractions of mandibular teeth. The primary objectives were differences in onset as well as in length of soft tissue anesthesia. The amount of anesthetic solution, need of a second injection, pain while injecting, pain during treatment, postoperative pain, and possible complications were surveyed. RESULTS: In both groups, anesthesia was sufficient for dental extractions. In group 1, a significantly faster onset of the anesthetic effect (7.2 min vs. 9.2 min; P = .001) and a significantly longer duration of soft tissue anesthesia (3.8 h vs. 2.5 h; P < .0001) were seen. There was no significant difference in the amount of anesthetic solution needed, in the need for a second injection, in the injection pain, in pain during treatment, or in postoperative analgesia. In both groups, no complications were seen. CONCLUSIONS: To minimize the epinephrine-induced side effects, 4% articaine without epinephrine is a suitable anesthetic agent for dental extractions in the mandible after inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia. There could be less postoperative discomfort due to the shorter duration of anesthesia without increased postoperative pain.

Early outcome of an implant system with a resorbable adhesive calcium-phosphate coating--a prospective clinical study in partially dentate patients.

This study aims to investigate the early outcome of a dental implant with bioactive calcium-phosphate (CaP) coating in the first year of usage in different clinical indications in partially edentulous patients, after early and delayed prosthetic loading. Therefore, in a prospective follow-up study, the cumulative survival and success rate of a conical, self-drilling and self-tapping implant system after 6 months and 1 year post-insertion was evaluated. A total of 311 CaP-coated implants were placed in 124 patients. Seventy-two implants in clinical high-quality bone situation were loaded after 2 weeks post-insertion with the definite restoration; the rest after 6 months. The indication for implant placement was treatment of partial dentate mandible and maxilla. One hundred sixty-three implants were placed in the posterior mandible, 117 in the posterior maxilla. In the frontal maxilla, 25 implants and in the frontal mandible, eight implants were used. In 126 cases (36%), bone augmentation procedures (guided bone regeneration and sinus lift) were performed concomitant with implant placement. The difference between primary and secondary stability (implant stability quotient (ISQ), Periotest, insertion torque), peri-implant clinical parameter as well as survival and success criteria were evaluated. In total, ISQ mean values after 6 months were higher than after implant placement. Periotest values increased in the period of the first 6 months and remained constant afterwards. After 6 months of insertion, the mean bone loss was 0.051 mm. After 12 months, a bone gain with a mean of +0.016 mm was observed; implants in the posterior maxilla showed significant less bone resorption than implants in the posterior mandible (p < 0.0001). In the most of the implants (74%), clinical normal gingival tissue could be observed. In 24%, a mild inflammation was analysed. In 35 implants, a provocation of peri-implant bleeding was possible. In the early loading group, no implant failure was seen. Altogether, one implant in D4 bone has been lost. The cumulative survival rate summed up to 99.7%. In general, implant success assessment analysis according to Albrektsson and Buser displayed success in 99.7% of the implants. With respect to the patient selection including 124 implants with minor and major augmentations as well as early loading prosthetic function, the 1-year clinical use of the studied implant system with CaP coating showed good results, comparable to that of conventional implants without a specific coating. After 1 year, neither special disadvantages nor benefits of CaP-coated implants could be evaluated. Long-term results are further needed.