Lingual supplementation may not be required after articaine buccal infiltration anesthesia for lower molar extraction: a clinical comparative study / La suplementación lingual opcional después de la anestesia por infiltración bucal con articaína para la extracción de molares inferiores: un estudio clínico comparativo

Purpose: To investigate the anesthetic effectiveness of buccal infiltration (BI) versus buccal plus lingual infiltration (BI+LI) of 4% articaine for intra-alveolar extraction of erupted mandibular molar teeth. Material and Methods: Eighty patients were included in this prospective clinical study. They were randomly divided into 1 of 2 equal groups: the 1st group received BI of 4% articaine 1.8 ml and LI of 0.5 ml, while the 2nd group received 4% articaine 1.8 ml BI plus 0.5 ml LI of normal saline. Another 1.8 ml articaine BI was given if initial anesthesia was inadequate. Outcome variables included pain, which was rated by patients at 3 intervals using visual analogue scale, and lingual anesthesia and patients' satisfaction which were measured using 5-score verbal rating scale. Data analyses used were descriptive statistics, t test, χ2 test, and Pearson's correlation coefficient. P-value value less than 0.05 was considered significant. Results: There were 46 females and 34 males and the mean age was 35.3 years. All outcome variables were comparable between the two study groups (p˃0.05). Anesthesia was successful in 78% and 88% of cases in the (BI) and (BI+LI) groups respectively with no significant difference (p=0.2392). The mean articaine volume used was 2.5 ml and 2.87 ml respectively without significant difference (p=0.090). Conclusion: The anesthetic efficacy of (BI) alone and (BI+LI) of 4% articaine was comparable. When given in an adequate dose, articaine (BI) alone could be justified as an anesthetic option for the intra-alveolar extraction of mandibular molar teeth.

Objetivo: Investigar la efectividad anestésica de la infiltración bucal (BI) versus la infiltración bucal más lingual (BI+LI) de articaína al 4% para la extracción intraalveolar de molares mandibulares erupcionados. Material y Métodos: Ochenta pacientes fueron incluidos en este estudio clínico prospectivo. Se dividieron aleatoriamente en 1 de 2 grupos iguales: el primer grupo recibió BI de articaína al 4% 1,8 ml y LI de 0,5 ml, mientras que el segundo grupo recibió articaína al 4% 1,8 ml BI más 0,5 ml LI de solución salina normal. Se administró otro BI de articaína de 1,8 ml si la anestesia inicial era inadecuada. Las variables de resultado incluyeron el dolor, que los pacientes calificaron en 3 intervalos mediante una escala analógica visual, y la anestesia lingual y la satisfacción de los pacientes, que se midieron mediante una escala de calificación verbal de 5 puntos. Los análisis de datos utilizados fueron estadística descriptiva, prueba t, prueba χ2 y coeficiente de correlación de Pearson. Se consideró significativo el valor del valor de pinferior a 0,05. Resultados: Hubo 46 mujeres y 34 hombres y la edad media fue de 35,3 años. Todas las variables de resultado fueron comparables entre los dos grupos de estudio (p=0,05). La anestesia fue exitosa en el 78% y 88% de los casos en los grupos (BI) y (BI+LI) respectivamente sin diferencia significativa (p=0,2392). El volumen medio de articaína utilizado fue de 2,5 ml y 2,87 ml respectivamente sin diferencia significativa (p=0,090). Conclusión: La eficacia anestésica de (BI) solo y (BI+LI) de articaína al 4% fue comparable. Cuando se administra en una dosis adecuada, la articaína (BI) sola podría estar justificada para la extracción intraalveolar de molares mandibulares.

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 / ¿Puede la infiltración bucal de articaína reemplazar la alveolar inferior tradicional bloqueo nervioso para el tratamiento de molares mandibulares en pacientes pediátricos?: Una revisión sistemática y un metanálisis

Background: It is unclear if buccal articaine infiltration can be used as an alternative to standard inferior alveo-lar nerve block (IANB) for treating mandibular molars in pediatric patients. Therefore, this study aimed to poolevidence to compare the efficacy of buccal infiltration of articaine vs IANB with lignocaine for pediatric dentalprocedures.Material and Methods: We searched the PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar data-bases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the two techniques in pediatric patients and reportingthe 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 differencein the success rates of the two anesthetic techniques (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.13, 7.96; I2=69%,p=0.98). Meta-analy-sis of data from the four studies demonstrated no statistically significant difference in pain during the procedurewith 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 lignocainein pediatric patients for treating mandibular molars. Based on the confidence intervals, there may be a tendencyof higher success rates with buccal infiltration of articaine.(AU)

Promising potential of articaine-loaded poly(epsilon-caprolactone) nanocapules for intraoral topical anesthesia.

To determine whether the permeation capacity and analgesic efficacy of articaine (ATC) could be increased and cytotoxicity decreased by encapsulation in poly(ɛ-caprolactone) nanocapsules (ATCnano), aiming at local or topical anesthesia in dentistry. Cellular viability was evaluated (using the MTT test and fluorescence microscopy) after 1 h and 24 h exposure of HaCaT cells to ATC, ATCnano, ATC with epinephrine (ATCepi), and ATC in nanocapsules with epinephrine (ATCnanoepi). The profiles of permeation of 2% ATC and 2% ATCnano across swine esophageal epithelium were determined using Franz-type vertical diffusion cells. Analgesic efficacy was evaluated with a von Frey anesthesiometer in a postoperative pain model in rats, comparing the 2% ATC, 2% ATCnano, 2% ATCepi, and 2% ATCnanoepi formulations to 4% ATCepi (a commercially available formulation). We show that use of the nanocapsules decreased the toxicity of articaine (P<0.0001) and increased its flux (P = 0.0007). The 2% ATCepi and 4% ATCepi formulations provided higher analgesia success and duration (P<0.05), compared to 2% ATC, 2% ATCnano, and 2% ATCnanoepi. Articaine-loaded poly(ɛ-caprolactone) nanocapsules constitute a promising formulation for intraoral topical anesthesia (prior to local anesthetic injection), although it is not effective when injected in inflamed tissues for pain control, such as irreversible pulpitis.

Volume and effectiveness assessment of articain 4% versus mepivacaine 2% used in third molar surgery: randomized, double-blind, split-mouth controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND: The different indications for extraction of the lower third molars, require resources to manage pain and discomfort, such as, for example, adequate anesthetic techniques, and the type of anesthetic used can influence the management of pain in tooth extractions. Few studies in the literature compare the anesthetics 4% articaine hydrochloride and 2% mepivacaine hydrochloride showing evidence that both allow for successful pain management. This study sought to compare the volume, efficacy and safety of these two anesthetic drugs, both associated with epinephrine at a ratio of 1:100,000, used in the extraction of lower third molars. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A controlled, clinical, split-mouth compared these both local anesthetics in a sample of 20 patients requiring bilateral extraction of teeth. Pain was the main parameter to be assessed by means of the visual analogue scale (VAS) applied during and immediately after the surgery. Hemodynamic parameters, adverse events, presence of paresthesia and satisfaction of patients and surgeon were also analysed. RESULTS: Pain management was more effective with mepivacaine up to two hours after surgery (p = 0.014), whereas the surgeon was more satisfied with the use of articaine during divulsion and suture (p < 0.05). However no statistically significant differences were found between both anesthetics regarding pain perception. CONCLUSIONS: It was observed that both anesthetics are efficient and safe in the management of pain for extraction of third molars, in which less amount of mepivacaine is needed. The satisfaction of patients and surgeon was the same for both anesthetics, with articaine being highlighted during divulsion and suture

No disponible

Local anesthetic articaine ameliorates LPS-induced acute kidney injury via inhibition of NF-ĸB activation and the NLRP3 inflammasome pathway.

The present study was conducted to determine the protective effect of articaine (ART) in an lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced acute kidney injury (AKI) animal model. The results suggest ART causes a significant decrease in serum blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, and serum cystatin C level, showing a protective effect against LPS-induced AKI. This has been further supported by histopathological findings of kidney tissues. The level of tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin (IL)-6, and IL-1ß in serum and kidney tissues was remarkably inhibited by ART in a dose-dependent manner. ART causes a significant reduction of malondialdehyde and increases the activities of glutathione and superoxide dismutase with an increase in dose as compared to the LPS-treated group. Moreover, the ART-treated group showed dose-dependent inhibition of LPS-induced nuclear factor-κB activation and TLR4 expression as confirmed by Western blot analysis. The level of Bcl-2 family genes (Bcl-2 and Bax) was restored near to normal by ART. Collectively, all the above results indicated that ART had protective effects against LPS-induced AKI by blocking inflammatory and oxidative responses.

Physicochemical characterization and cytotoxicity of articaine-2-hydroxypropyl-ß-cyclodextrin inclusion complex.

Articaine (ATC) is one of the most widely used local anesthetics in dentistry. Despite its safety, local toxicity has been reported. This study aimed to develop an ATC-2- hydroxypropyl-ß-cyclodextrin inclusion complex (ATC HPßCD) and to assess its toxicity in vitro. The inclusion complex was performed by solubilization, followed by a fluorimetric and job plot assay to determine the complex stoichiometry. Scanning electron microscopy, DOSY- 1 H-NMR, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), and sustained release kinetics were used to confirm the inclusion complex formation. In vitro cytotoxicity was analyzed by MTT assay and immunofluorescence in HGF cells. Fluorimetric and job plot assay determined the inclusion complex stoichiometry (ATC:HPßCD = 1:1) and complex formation time (400 min), as indicated by a strong host/guest interaction (Ka = 117.8 M - 1), complexed fraction (f = 41.4%), and different ATC and ATC HPßCD melting points (172 °C e 235 °C, respectively). The mean of cell viability was 31.87% and 63.17% for 20-mM ATC and 20-mM ATC HPßCD, respectively. Moreover, remarkable cell toxicity was observed with free ATC by immunofluorescence. These results indicate the ATC HPßCD complex could be used to improve the safety of ATC. Further research are needed to establish the anesthetic safety and effectiveness in vivo .

The efficacy of supplemental intraseptal and buccal infiltration anesthesia in mandibular molars of patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the success rate of three different anesthetic techniques in mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in mandibular molars randomly received three anesthetic techniques. Group I: an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) of 2% lidocaine. Group II: IANB and buccal infiltration (BI) of 4% articaine. Group III: IANB + BI and intraseptal injection of articaine in each mesial and distal papilla. The pain (Heft-Parker visual analog scale (VAS)) and electric pulp tester (EPT) scores were recorded prior to (VAS1, EPT1) and after the injection and during access preparation (VAS2, EPT2). The success of anesthesia was defined as the ability to access the tooth with no or mild pain (VAS ≤ 54). RESULTS: The mean value for VAS2 was significantly less and the mean value for EPT2 was significantly more in groups II and III compared with group I. The success rates for groups I, II, and III were 30.33%, 66.66%, and 80.00% respectively. Also, differences of EPT2, VAS2, and success rates were statistically significant between groups II and III. CONCLUSION: Administration of articaine as a supplemental intraseptal and BI following IANB can be considered a more successful anesthetic technique in mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis compared with the conventional IANB and supplemental BI. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The addition of an articaine intraseptal injection to IANB+BI technique may result in a significantly higher success rate of pulpal anesthesia in mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

[The efficacy of therapeutic nerve blocks in patients with cervicogenic headache]. / Éffektivnost' lechebnykh blokad u patsientov s tservikogennoi golovnoi bol'iu.

AIM: To compare the efficacy of 2% articaine solution and 2% lidocaine solution used to perform therapeutic nerve blocks of the large occipital nerve in patients with cervicogenic headache. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized prospective comparative clinical study was conducted in two groups treated with articaine (n=22) or lidocaine (n=21). The therapeutic great occipital nerve blocks were performed on the 1st, 3d and 5th days of treatment. The efficacy of treatment was assessed by the pain intensity measured with the Visual Analogue scale (VAS) and the duration of individual pain paroxysms on the 5th and 10th days. RESULTS: The baseline VAS pain intensity was 6.3±1.2 and 5.9±2.0 centimeters, whereas the duration of individual pain paroxysms was 7.8±2.3 and 9.1±2.8 hours in the articaine group and the lidocaine group, respectively. By the 5th day, there was a more dramatically decrease in VAS pain intensity and duration in the articaine group (up to 3.0±0.8 and 4.3±1.2 centimeters VAS (p<0.05)) compared to the lidocaine group (up to 1.9±0.6 to 4.8±1.3 hours (p<0.05)). By the 10th day, the pain intensity did not differ between groups (1.2±0.5 and 1.7±0.7 centimeters (p>0.05)). The duration of pain episodes was still lower in the articaine group (0.5±0.08 hours) compared to the lidocaine group (2.4±0.8 hours) (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Therapeutic large occipital nerve blocks with 2% solution of articaine show the significant decrease in pain intensity and duration of pain paroxysms in a short period of time for patients with cervicogenic headache.

Sinus floor elevation using a new bovine bone grafting material: case report and bone grafting materials update / Actualización en materiales de relleno óseo: reporte de un caso clínico de elevamiento del piso del seno maxilar usando un nuevo material de relleno óseo bovino

Bone grafting is important to preserve the alveolar bone ridge height and volume for dental implant placement. Even though implant-supported overdentures present highly successful outcomes, it seems that a great number of edentulous individuals have not pursued implant-based rehabilitation. The cost of the treatment is one of the reasons of discrepancy between highly successful therapy and its acceptance. Therefore, the development of biomaterials for bone grafting with comparable characteristics and biological effects than those renowned internationally, is necessary. In addition, domestic manufacture would reduce the high costs in public health arising from the application of these biomaterials in the dental feld. The purpose of this clinical case report is to provide preliminary clinical evidence of the efficacy of a new bovine bone graft in the bone healing process when used for sinus floor elevation. (AU)

El uso de injertos óseos es importante para preservar la altura y el volumen de la cresta alveolar para la colocación de implantes dentales. Si bien las sobredentaduras implanto-soportadas presentan resultados altamente exitosos, la mayoría de las personas desdentadas no han sido rehabilitadas mediante implantes dentales. Uno de los principales motivos por los cuales los pacientes no aceptan este tipo de tratamiento, altamente exitoso, es el elevado costo del mismo. Por ello, es necesario el desarrollo de biomateriales de injerto óseo con características y efectos biológicos comparables a los reconocidos internacionalmente. Asimismo, la fabricación nacional reduciría los altos costos en Salud Pública derivados de la aplicación de estos biomateriales en el campo dental. El objetivo de esta comunicación es presentar un caso clínico a fin de proporcionar evidencia preliminar acerca de la eficacia de un nuevo injerto de hueso bovino en el proceso de cicatrización ósea en el levantamiento del piso del seno maxilar. (AU)

A case of transient diplopia and ophthalmoplegia following dental anesthesia.

Dental anesthesia is one of the most frequently performed medical procedures. Although the frequency of ocular complications is extremely low, these reactions can be highly alarming and may bring up medicolegal issues when they do occur. Dentists and oral surgeons should be well-informed of these adverse reactions and should be aware that both ophthalmologists and emergency physicians might be required to care for these patients.

Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of articaine in irreversible pulpitis of the mandibular molar: A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of two volumes of articaine in conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) of mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis, and in cases of anesthetic failure, its complementation with periodontal ligament injection (PDL). METHODS: Ninety patients with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular molars received conventional IANB with 1.8 mL or 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. In cases of IANB failure, the same volumes were administered in the PDL. Presence of pulpal anesthesia and absence/presence of pain during pulpectomy were evaluated by electric pulp stimulation and verbal analogue scale, respectively. Relative risks (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for each outcome. RESULTS: 27% and 42% of the patients achieved pulpal anesthesia following IANB with 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL, respectively (RR = 0.63, CI 95% 0.35 to 1.14, p = 0.12). Analgesia during pulpectomy was present in 64% and 73% of the patients, respectively, for 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL (RR = 0.87, CI 95% 0.66 to 1.16, p = 0.36). In cases of IANB failure, 75% and 42% of the patients that received 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of PDL injection, respectively, achieved pulpal anesthesia (RR = 1.80, CI 95% 0.87 to 3.72, p = 0.11). During a new attempt at the pulpectomy procedure, analgesia was present in 69% and 75% of the patients, respectively, for 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL (RR = 0.91, CI 95% 0.57 to 1.45, p = 0.71). CONCLUSION: Increasing the volume from 1.8 mL to 3.6 mL of the 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in the IANB and in the PDL, did not significantly increase the success rate of pulpal anesthesia and clinical analgesia during the pulpectomy procedure. Therefore, both volumes presented a similar efficacy, though neither resulted in effective pain control during irreversible pulpitis treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02422823.

Buccal injection of articaine to anesthetize the palatal mucosa.

Buccal and palatal injections are required for administration of anesthetic agents before maxillary tooth extractions, but palatal injections are painful for patients. Studies suggest that the palatal injection can be eliminated when articaine is delivered as a local anesthetic agent via buccal injection, but the anatomical mechanism for this effectiveness remains unclear. The objective of this study was to explore the potential mechanism by which buccal infiltration results in palatal anesthesia. The study approach included examining cadaveric specimens and investigating the pharmacologic properties of articaine. Twenty-eight formalin-fixed cadaveric hemimaxillae were dissected and sectioned into anterior, premolar, and molar regions. The maxillary sections were measured in 3 planes: inferior, middle, and superior. Buccal cortical plate (BCP), palatal cortical plate (PCP), and total buccopalatal (TBP) thickness were independently evaluated by 2 measurers using standard digital calipers. Statistical analysis of regional maxillary thickness measurements was achieved via 2-way analysis of variance. Measurements of BCP and PCP thickness revealed no statistically significant differences along the maxillae (P > 0.05). Both the BCP and PCP mean values were significantly less than the TBP measurement (P < 0.0001). In all 3 regions, the mean TBP thickness in the superior plane was significantly greater than that of the inferior plane (P < 0.05). The mean TBP thickness was significantly greater in the molar and premolar regions than in the anterior region (P < 0.05). The mean BCP measurements were significantly lesser in the maxillary premolar and molar regions than in the corresponding mandibular regions (P < 0.0001). The pharmacologic properties of articaine, which is capable of diffusing greater distances than other local anesthetics, coupled with the uniformly thin, cancellous maxillary bone, provide a plausible explanation for the success of palatal anesthesia achieved through buccal infiltration of articaine, obviating the need for a palatal injection.

Effectiveness of Articaine Buccal Infiltration Anesthesia for Mandibular Premolar Extraction: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the anesthetic adequacy of buccal versus buccal plus lingual infiltration of 4% articaine 1.8 mL for mandibular premolar teeth extraction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted in which patients presented with a mandibular premolar for extraction under local anesthesia. The sample population was randomly divided into 2 equal groups: the first group received infiltration of 4% articaine 1.8 mL buccally and 0.4 mL lingually and the second group received infiltration of 4% articaine 1.8 mL buccally plus lingual injection of normal saline 0.4 mL. Pain was measured during anesthetic injection, 8 minutes after injection, and during extraction using a visual analog scale. Initial lingual anesthesia and patients' satisfaction were measured using a 5-score verbal rating scale. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, t test, and Pearson χ2 test. Significance was set at a P value less than.05. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were included in this study (37 men and 35 women; average age, 49.8 yr). Mean pain scores during injection and extraction and satisfaction scores were comparable between study groups (P = .432, .240, and .478, respectively). Success rates were 100 and 89% in groups A and B, respectively, with no significant difference (P = .1145). CONCLUSIONS: The anesthetic parameters of 1 buccal infiltration of 4% articaine 1.8 mL with and without lingual supplementation were comparable. This result could justify the use of buccal articaine infiltration as an effective alternative to the standard inferior alveolar nerve block technique for extraction of lower premolar teeth.

Analgesic efficacy of articaine hydrochloride for velvet antler removal in red deer (Cervus elaphus) and analysis of drug residues in the harvested velvet antlers.

AIMS: To investigate the analgesic efficacy of articaine hydrochloride for antler removal in red deer (Cervus elaphus) following S/C administration as a ring block, and to quantify the residue concentrations of articaine compared to lignocaine in the harvested antlers. METHODS: Articaine hydrochloride (40 mg/mL) was administered to 10 male red deer as a ring block around the base of each antler at 1 mL/cm of pedicle circumference. Analgesia was evaluated by determining the response to a saw cut test every 1-minute, until no response was observed. Behaviour during and following removal of antlers was also recorded. Twenty commercially harvested velvet antlers were also collected following S/C administration of 2% lignocaine hydrochloride. A liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) method for quantification of residues of articaine and lignocaine in velvet antlers was developed and validated. RESULTS: In red deer administered 4% articaine hydrochloride as a ring block, the median interval to analgesia was 4 (min 3, max 5) minutes and no deer showed withdrawal responses during antler removal. There were no signs of toxicity or adverse effects up to 2 hours after administration. The sample preparation method developed for the LC-MS was simple and had acceptable extraction recoveries of articaine and lignocaine from the velvet antlers. The lower limits of quantification of lignocaine and articaine were 5 and 50 ng/g, respectively. Mean concentrations of articaine in antlers following ring block with 4% articaine hydrochloride were 1.50 (SD 1.09) mg/kg, and of lignocaine following ring block with 2% lignocaine hydrochloride were 0.66 (SD 0.71) mg/kg. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A ring block with 4% articaine hydrochloride at a dose of 1 mL/cm of pedicle circumference provided effective analgesia for velvet antler removal in red deer. The LC-MS method developed and validated to quantify articaine and lignocaine was simple and sensitive. Based on these results, articaine hydrochloride appears to be an effective alternative to lignocaine hydrochloride for velvet antler removal. However, further studies to evaluate the safety and residue concentrations of articaine and articainic acid are required before it can be recommended for use in deer.Abbreviations: DMA: 2,6-dimethylaniline; LC-MS: Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry; MEGX: Monoethylglycinexylidide; MRL: Maximum residue level.

Efficacy of Articaine Versus Lidocaine Administered as Supplementary Intraligamentary Injection after a Failed Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block: A Randomized Double-blind Study.

INTRODUCTION: The present study comparatively evaluated the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine given as supplemental intraligamentary injections after a failed inferior alveolar nerve block. METHODS: One hundred six adult patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in a mandibular first or second molar received an initial inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine. Pain during the endodontic treatment was assessed using the Heft-Parker visual analog scale. Eighty-two patients with unsuccessful anesthesia were randomly allocated to 2 treatment groups: 1 group received 0.6 mL/root of supplementary intraligamentary injection of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, and the second group received 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine. Endodontic treatment was reinitiated. Success after the primary injection or supplementary injection was defined as no or mild pain (less than 55 mm on the Heft-Parker visual analog scale) during access preparation and root canal instrumentation. Patients' heart rate was monitored using a finger pulse oximeter. The anesthetic success rates were analyzed with the Pearson chi-square test at 5% significance levels. The heart rate changes were analyzed using the t test. RESULTS: The patients receiving supplementary intraligamentary injections of 4% articaine had a success rate of 66%, whereas 2% lidocaine injections were successful in 78% of cases. The difference was statistically nonsignificant (χ2 = 1.51, P = .2). There was no significant effect of the different anesthetic agents on the heart rate. CONCLUSIONS: Both 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine improved the success rates after a failed primary anesthetic injection, with no significant difference between them.

Comparative study of articaine and lidocaine without palatal injection for maxillary teeth extraction.

OBJECTIVES: There is significant evidence that articaine and lidocaine buccal injections alone are sufficient for painless extraction of maxillary teeth. The aim of this study was to evaluate the extraction of permanent maxillary teeth and to compare pain control between articaine and lidocaine without palatal injection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Group A received buccal and palatal injections of 2% lidocaine with 0.015 mg/ml epinephrine. Group B received only buccal local anesthetic injection of 2% lidocaine with 0.015 mg/ml epinephrine. Group C received only buccal injection of 4% articaine with 0.012 mg/ml epinephrine. The patients' perception of pain was assessed using visual analogue scale and verbal response scale after the injection and the extraction. RESULTS: Statistical analysis showed that the difference in pain perception of local anesthetic injection was statistically significant between groups A and B and between groups A and C (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The extraction of permanent maxillary teeth is possible without palatal injections and there is no difference between articaine and lidocaine. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Local anesthetic agents are the most frequently administered drugs in dentistry and represent the primary method of pain control for patients undergoing intraoral procedures.

Anesthetic efficacy of mental/incisive nerve block compared to inferior alveolar nerve block using 4% articaine in mandibular premolars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the onset, success rate, injection pain, and post-injection pain of mental/incisive nerve block (MINB) with that of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) using 4% articaine in mandibular premolars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. The accuracy of electrical pulp test (EPT) in determining pulpal anesthesia was also examined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was designed as a randomized clinical trial with two study arms-MINB and IANB. Injections were performed using a standardized technique. Root canal treatment was initiated 10 min after the injection. Success was defined as no pain or mild pain during access cavity preparation and instrumentation. Injection pain and post-injection pain (up to 7 days) were recorded. All pain ratings were done using Heft-Parker Visual Analog Scale (HP VAS). RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were enrolled. The success rate of MINB (93.8%) was higher than IANB (81.2%) but the difference was not significant (p > 0.05). The onset of anesthesia with MINB was significantly quicker, and injection pain was significantly less (p < 0.05), but post-injection pain was significantly higher during the first 4 days (p < 0.001). The accuracy of EPT in determining pulpal anesthesia was 96.88%. CONCLUSIONS: MINB and IANB with 4% articaine had similar efficacy in anesthetizing mandibular premolars with irreversible pulpitis. Post-injection pain with MINB was higher than with IANB. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: MINB and IANB with 4% articaine can be used interchangeably to anesthetize mandibular premolars with irreversible pulpitis.

The effect of intraosseous local anesthesia of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine on pulpal blood flow and pulpal anesthesia of mandibular molars and canines.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of intraosseous (IO) anesthesia with 4% articaine and 1:100,000 epinephrine on pulpal blood flow (PBF) and pulpal anesthesia of mandibular first molars and canines in human subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers with intact mandibular first molar and canine were given an osteocentral technique of IO injection using the Quick Sleeper 5 system and 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine at distal site of mandibular first molar. The PBF was monitored by a laser Doppler flowmeter (LDF). Pulpal anesthesia was assessed with an electric pulp tester (EPT). RESULTS: IO injection caused a decrease in PBF in molars from 6.31 ± 3.85 perfusion units (P.U.) before injection to 2.51 ± 2.53 P.U. 1 min after injection (P < 0.001). The percentage reduction in PBF was 60% after 1 min and PBF returned back to the baseline after 45 min. No significant reduction in PBF was observed in the canines (P = 0.212). For pulpal anesthesia in the molars, the mean onset was 2.40 ± 0.84 min and the mean duration was 38 ± 16.19 min. In the canines, there was a decrease in the sensitivity to EPT but complete pulpal anesthesia was not achieved. CONCLUSIONS: IO injection distal to mandibular first molar caused a decrease in PBF and successful pulpal anesthesia in first molar, but not in canine. Both PBF and EPT readings returned to normal, suggesting that pulpal ischemia may not occur. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: IO anesthesia is safe to use as a primary technique in teeth with normal pulp.

The efficacy of articaine and lidocaine local anaesthetic in child patients.

Data sourcesCochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, SCIEXPANDED (ISI Web of Knowledge).Study selectionTwo reviewers selected randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of articaine and lidocaine in pain rating during dental treatment in child patients.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors extracted data using a standardised form, and risk of bias was assessed based on Cochranes Risk of bias tool for RCTs. Meta-analysis was performed on all included studies (n=6) where self-reported pain during and after dental procedure was recorded, and which compared articaine local anaesthesia (LA) to lidocaine LA in children. Then a sensitive analysis was performed excluding the studies with high overall risk of bias (n=3).ResultsSix studies were included, one had 'low', two had 'moderate/uncertain' and three had 'high' risk of bias. To evaluate the impact of these studies with 'high' overall risk of bias, a sensitivity analysis was performed and even when excluding these studies, children who had articaine reported significantly less pain after procedure. However, during the procedure no difference was found between self-reported pain when articaine infiltration and lidocaine inferior dental nerve block were compared.ConclusionsLow quality evidence suggests no difference in efficacy between lidocaine Inferior alveolar dental nerve blocks and articaine infiltration when used for routine dental treatment in children. Also, no difference was found in self-reported pain between lidocaine and articaine during treatment procedures, but apparently articaine leads to less pain reporting after the procedure. The body of the evidence is quite low due to the substantial heterogeneity in the reported outcomes and the overall high risk of bias of the included studies.