Anesthetic efficacy of a combination of 0.5 M mannitol plus 36.8 mg of lidocaine with 18.4 µg epinephrine in maxillary infiltration: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study.

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blind study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of lidocaine with epinephrine compared to lidocaine with epinephrine plus 0.5 M mannitol in maxillary lateral incisor infiltrations. Forty-one subjects randomly received 2 maxillary lateral infiltrations consisting of a 1.84-mL solution of 36.8 mg lidocaine with 18.4 µg epinephrine (control solution) and a 2.90-mL solution of 36.8 mg lidocaine with 18.4 µg epinephrine (1.84 mL) plus 0.5 M mannitol (1.06 mL) in 2 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. The maxillary lateral incisor was blindly electric pulp-tested in 2-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. No response from the subject to the maximum output (a reading of 80) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Total percent pulpal anesthesia was defined as the total of all pulpal anesthesia readings (at output of 80) over the 60-minute test period. Pain during solution deposition and postoperative pain were also measured. The results demonstrated that a 2.90-mL solution of 36.8 mg lidocaine with 18.4 µg epinephrine (1.84 mL) plus 0.5 M mannitol (1.06 mL) was not statistically significantly superior to a 1.84-mL solution of 36.8 mg lidocaine with 18.4 µg epinephrine. The pain of solution deposition was lower with the lidocaine/mannitol formulation. Postoperative pain was not statistically significantly different between the lidocaine/mannitol formulation and the lidocaine formulation without mannitol. We concluded that adding 0.5 M mannitol to a lidocaine with epinephrine formulation was not significantly more effective in achieving a greater percentage of total pulpal anesthesia (as defined in this study) than a lidocaine formulation without mannitol in the maxillary lateral incisor.

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.

Pain Reduction of Ibuprofen Sodium Dihydrate Alone and in Combination with Acetaminophen in an Untreated Endodontic Pain Model: A Randomized, Double-blind Investigation.

INTRODUCTION: Most pain studies have been based on a postsurgical, third molar model using ibuprofen (IBU)/acetaminophen (APAP). Studies have found quicker onset of pain relief with a newer formulation of IBU - ibuprofen sodium dihydrate (ISD). The purpose of this study was to compare pain reduction of ISD/APAP to ISD in an acute endodontic pain model of untreated patients experiencing moderate to severe pain with symptomatic apical periodontitis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this double-blind randomized study, 64 adult emergency patients in acute moderate to severe pain, a pulpal diagnosis of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis or necrosis, and symptomatic apical periodontitis participated. Each patient randomly received either one dose of 768 mg ISD/1000 mg APAP or one dose of 768 mg ISD. Pain intensity scores were recorded every 15 minutes over 240 minutes using the Heft-Parker VAS along with time to first sign of pain relief, time to meaningful pain relief, and time to 50% pain relief also recorded. The data were analyzed statistically. RESULTS: Both ISD and ISD/APAP groups showed a progressive decrease in pain from baseline to 120 minutes after medication administration. Afterward, a relative plateau was seen in the patients' pain. There was no difference in the VAS scores between the ISD and ISD/APAP at any given time point, time to first sign of pain relief, time to meaningful pain relief, and time to 50% pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of APAP to ISD for pain control in an untreated endodontic pain model did not differ significantly from ISD alone.

Anesthetic efficacy of a combination of 0.5 M mannitol plus 127.2 mg of lidocaine with 50 µg epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve blocks: a prospective randomized, single-blind study.

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blind study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of 127.2 mg lidocaine with 50 µg epinephrine compared to 127.2 mg lidocaine with 50 µg epinephrine plus 0.5 M mannitol in inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) blocks. Forty subjects randomly received 2 IAN blocks consisting of a 3.18 mL formulation of 127.2 mg lidocaine with 50 µg epinephrine and a 5 mL formulation of 127.2 mg lidocaine with 50 µg epinephrine (3.18 mL) plus 0.5 M mannitol (1.82 mL) in 2 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. Mandibular anterior and posterior teeth were blindly electric pulp tested at 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. Pain of solution deposition and postoperative pain were also measured. No response from the subject to the maximum output (80 reading) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Total percent pulpal anesthesia was defined as the total of all the times of pulpal anesthesia (80 readings) over the 60 minutes. One hundred percent of the subjects had profound lip numbness with both inferior alveolar nerve blocks. The results demonstrated that a 5 mL formulation of 127.2 mg lidocaine with 50 µg epinephrine plus 0.5 M mannitol was significantly better than the 3.18 mL formulation of 127.2 mg lidocaine with 50 µg epinephrine for all teeth. Solution deposition pain and postoperative pain were not statistically different between the lidocaine/mannitol formulation and the lidocaine formulation without mannitol. We concluded that adding 0.5 M mannitol to a lidocaine with epinephrine formulation was significantly more effective in achieving a greater percentage of total pulpal anesthesia than a lidocaine formulation without mannitol.

Anesthetic efficacy of a combination of 0.9 M mannitol plus 68.8 mg of lidocaine with 50 µg epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve blocks: a prospective randomized, single blind study.

The purpose of this prospective randomized, single blind study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of 68.8 mg of lidocaine with 50 µg epinephrine compared to 68.8 mg lidocaine with 50 µg epinephrine plus 0.9 M mannitol in inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) blocks. Forty subjects randomly received 2 IAN blocks consisting of a 1.72-mL formulation of 68.8 mg lidocaine with 50 µg epinephrine and a 5-mL formulation of 68.8 mg lidocaine with 50 µg epinephrine (1.72 mL) plus 0.9 M mannitol (3.28 mL) in 2 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. Mandibular anterior and posterior teeth were blindly electric pulp tested at 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. No response from the subject to the maximum output (80 reading) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Total percent pulpal anesthesia was defined as the total of all the times of pulpal anesthesia (80 readings), for each tooth, over the 60 minutes. One hundred percent of the subjects had profound lip numbness with both inferior alveolar nerve blocks. The results demonstrated that the 5 mL-formulation of 68.8 mg lidocaine with 50 µg epinephrine plus 0.9 M mannitol was significantly better than the 1.72-mL formulation of 68.8 mg lidocaine with 50 µg epinephrine for all teeth, except the lateral incisor. We concluded that adding 0.9 M mannitol to a lidocaine with epinephrine formulation was significantly more effective in achieving a greater percentage of total pulpal anesthesia (as defined in this study) than a lidocaine formulation without mannitol. However, the 0.9 M mannitol/lidocaine formulation would not provide 100% pulpal anesthesia for all the mandibular teeth.

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 Infiltrations of the Mandibular Lateral Incisor-Is It Volume or Location of the Infiltrations That Affect Success? A Prospective, Randomized Crossover Study.

INTRODUCTION: A combination labial infiltration (1.8 mL) plus lingual infiltration (1.8 mL) of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in the mandibular lateral incisor was found superior to a labial infiltration of 1.8 mL of the same solution. However, it is not known whether the volume or the location had the greatest effect. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective, randomized crossover study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of a labial infiltration of a 3.6 mL volume of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine compared with labial infiltration (1.8 mL) plus lingual infiltration (1.8 mL) of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in the mandibular lateral incisor. METHODS: One hundred subjects randomly received 2 sets of injections, using 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, consisting of labial and lingual infiltrations of 1.8 mL (3.6 mL total) and 2 labial infiltrations of 1.8 mL (3.6 mL total) of the mandibular lateral incisor in 2 separate appointments. Electric pulp testing was used to determine anesthetic success (highest 80/80 reading). The data were analyzed statistically. RESULTS: The labial and lingual combination exhibited a significantly higher anesthetic success rate (97%) when compared with the 2 labial infiltrations (74%) and had significantly higher 80/80s readings from 1 minute to 58 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this clinical study, a combination labial plus lingual infiltration using a 3.6-mL volume of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine significantly increased pulpal anesthetic success for the mandibular lateral incisor when compared with a labial infiltration using a 3.6-mL volume of articaine. Therefore, location of the infiltrations was more important than volume.

Comparison of Maxillary Lateral Incisor Infiltration Pain Using the Dentapen and a Traditional Syringe: A Prospective Randomized Study.

INTRODUCTION: The anterior maxillary infiltration is one of the more painful dental injections. The Dentapen is an electronic syringe that uses computer-controlled delivery technology to administer dental local anesthesia at a slow controlled rate. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blind study was to evaluate solution deposition pain of a maxillary lateral incisor infiltration using the Dentapen with the slow flow rate (1.8 mL/162 sec) and ramp-up setting compared with a traditional syringe infiltration at a flow rate of 1.8 mL/60 sec. METHODS: One hundred thirty adults were administered a maxillary lateral incisor infiltration with the Dentapen and a traditional syringe at 2 separate appointments in a single-blind manner. The infiltrations of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine were given at a rate of 1.8 mL/162 sec with the ramp-up feature for the Dentapen and 1.8 mL/60 sec for the traditional infiltration. The pain of solution deposition was recorded on a visual analogue scale. At the conclusion of the study, subjects selected their preferred injection technique. The data were analyzed statistically using paired t tests, a mixed-effect model, and odds ratio. RESULTS: The pain of solution deposition was significantly less for the Dentapen injection than the traditional injection (P < .001). With the Dentapen device, 16% experienced moderate pain, and for the traditional syringe, 39% experienced moderate pain. Overall, 75% of subjects preferred the Dentapen injection over the traditional injection. CONCLUSIONS: The Dentapen, using the slow flow rate and ramp-up mode, significantly reduced the pain of solution deposition for maxillary lateral incisor infiltrations.

Prospective Study on PDL Anesthesia as an Aide to Decrease Palatal Infiltration Pain.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to assess using a periodontal ligament (PDL) injection as an aide to decrease palatal infiltration pain. METHODS: A total of 133 subjects randomly received a PDL injection and alternative palatal infiltration or a mock PDL injection and conventional palatal infiltration at 2 separate appointments. PDL injection was given in the mid-palatal sulcus of the maxillary first molar. Mock PDL injection consisted of only needle insertion. All subjects then received a palatal infiltration administered into the blanched gingival tissue 3 mm (alternative palatal infiltration) or 7 mm (conventional palatal infiltration) from the gingival collar. Subjects recorded needle insertion and solution deposition pain using a Heft-Parker visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: The combined PDL injection and alternative palatal infiltration had significantly decreased mean VAS ratings for needle insertion and solution deposition pain (P < .0001). Incidence of moderate/severe pain for needle insertion and solution deposition was reduced from 65% to 1% and from 65% to 2%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Providing PDL anesthesia into the mid-palatal sulcus of the maxillary first molar and then administering an alternative palatal infiltration into the blanched collar around the PDL molar site led to significant reductions in needle insertion and solution deposition pain compared with a mock PDL and conventional palatal infiltration.

Anesthetic efficacy of combinations of 0.5 m mannitol and lidocaine with epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve blocks: a prospective randomized, single-blind study.

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blind study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of lidocaine with epinephrine compared to lidocaine with epinephrine plus 0.5 M mannitol in inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) blocks. Forty subjects randomly received an IAN block in 3 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart using the following formulations: a 1.8 mL solution of 36 mg lidocaine with 18 µg epinephrine (control solution); a 2.84 mL solution of 36 mg lidocaine with 18 µg epinephrine (1.80 mL) plus 0.5 M mannitol (1.04 mL); and a 5 mL solution of 63.6 mg lidocaine with 32 µg epinephrine (3.18 mL) plus 0.5 M mannitol (1.82 mL). Mandibular teeth were blindly electric pulp tested at 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. No response from the subject to the maximum output (80 reading) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Mean percent total pulpal anesthesia was defined as the total of all the times of pulpal anesthesia (80 readings) over the 60 minutes. Pain of solution deposition and postoperative pain were also measured. The results demonstrated that 2.84 mL of lidocaine with epinephrine plus 0.5 M mannitol was significantly better than 1.8 mL of lidocaine with epinephrine for the molars and premolars. The 5 mL of lidocaine with epinephrine plus 0.5 M mannitol was statistically better than 1.8 mL of lidocaine with epinephrine and 2.84 mL of lidocaine with epinephrine plus 0.5 M mannitol for all teeth except the central incisor. Solution deposition pain and postoperative pain were not statistically different among the mannitol formulations and the lidocaine formulation without mannitol. We concluded that adding 0.5 M mannitol to lidocaine with epinephrine formulations significantly improved effectiveness in achieving a greater percentage of total pulpal anesthesia compared with a lidocaine formulation without mannitol for IAN block.

Anesthetic Success Using Nitrous Oxide and a Combination of Lidocaine/Clonidine for the Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block and the Effects on Blood Pressure and Pulse in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Study.

INTRODUCTION: The pulpal anesthetic success rates for an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) alone in patients presenting with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis are less than adequate. Nitrous oxide and clonidine have shown increases in IANB success when administered individually, but their success has not been evaluated when used together. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to determine the effect of nitrous oxide/oxygen plus an IANB using lidocaine/clonidine on the success of the IANB in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and to evaluate the effect of clonidine on blood pressure and pulse. METHODS: Sixty-two emergency patients experiencing moderate to severe pain and a diagnosis of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis were enrolled. Subjects were randomly divided into 2 groups and received nitrous oxide/oxygen and an IANB using 2% lidocaine with either 27 µg clonidine or 18 µg epinephrine as vasoconstrictors. Blood pressure and pulse were recorded before and during the emergency endodontic treatment. Anesthetic success was defined as no or mild pain upon access and instrumentation of the canals. RESULTS: The pulpal anesthetic success rate in both treatments was 58%, with no significant difference between the groups. There was no statistically significant difference in pulse or systolic blood pressure with the use of clonidine compared with epinephrine. Diastolic blood pressure was significant. CONCLUSIONS: The use of nitrous/oxide plus the addition of lidocaine/clonidine for the IANB in teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis resulted in no statistically significant difference in anesthetic success of the IANB. There were no statistically significant differences in pulse or systolic blood pressure with the use of clonidine compared with epinephrine; diastolic blood pressure was significant.

Effect of a Combination of Nitrous Oxide and Intraligamentary Injection on the Success of the Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this prospective study was to determine the effect of a combination of nitrous oxide/oxygen and 1 set of supplemental intraligamentary/periodontal ligament (PDL) injections followed by a second set of PDL injections on anesthetic success in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP). METHODS: Ninety-four patients with a mandibular posterior tooth diagnosed with SIP received nitrous oxide/oxygen and an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Patients rated the pain of PDL injections and endodontic access on a visual analog scale. If moderate to severe pain was felt during treatment, the operator administered 1 set of supplemental PDL injections with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. If moderate to severe pain was felt again during treatment, the operator administered a second set of supplemental PDL injections. Anesthetic success was defined as having no to mild pain during endodontic treatment. RESULTS: The success of the IANB with nitrous oxide was 44% (95% confidence interval [CI], 34%-54%). The overall anesthetic success rate (IANB with PDL injections) was increased from 69% (95% CI, 60%-78%) with 1 set of PDL injections to 80% (95% CI, 72%-88%) with a second set of PDL injections. CONCLUSIONS: Although the second set of PDL injections increased anesthetic success, it was not sufficient to ensure complete pulpal anesthesia.

Nitrous Oxide/Oxygen Effect on IANB Injection Pain and Mandibular Pulpal Anesthesia in Asymptomatic Subjects.

The inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) does not always result in successful pulpal anesthesia. Nitrous oxide may increase the success of the IANB. The purpose of this investigation was to study the effect of nitrous oxide/oxygen (N2O/O2) on IANB injection pain and mandibular pulpal anesthesia in asymptomatic subjects. One hundred five asymptomatic subjects received an IANB after the administration of N2O/O2 or room air/oxygen (air/O2) at 2 separate appointments. After the IANB, subjects rated their level of pain for each phase of the injection (needle insertion, needle placement, and solution deposition) using a Heft Parker visual analog scale. Pulpal anesthesia was evaluated with an electric pulp tester for 60 minutes. The mean pain rating for all 3 injection phases showed a statistically significant reduction in pain when N2O/O2 was used compared with Air/O2 (P < .05). Odds ratios demonstrated a statistically significant increase in IANB success for the N2O/O2 group compared with the air/O2 group. N2O/O2 administration statistically decreased pain for all 3 injection phases of the IANB. In addition, nitrous oxide statistically increased the likelihood of pulpal anesthesia for posterior mandibular teeth. However, the incidence of pulpal anesthesia was not 100%.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of 2% mepivacaine with 1 : 20,000 levonordefrin versus 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine for maxillary infiltrations.

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind crossover study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 2% mepivacaine with 1 : 20,000 levonordefrin versus 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine in maxillary central incisors and first molars. Sixty subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, maxillary central incisor and first molar infiltrations of 1.8 mL of 2% mepivacaine with 1 : 20,000 levonordefrin and 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine at 2 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. The teeth were electric pulp tested in 2-minute cycles for a total of 60 minutes. Anesthetic success (obtaining 2 consecutive 80 readings with the electric pulp tester within 10 minutes) was not significantly different between 2% mepivacaine with 1 : 20,000 levonordefrin and 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine for the central incisor and first molar. However, neither anesthetic agent provided an hour of pulpal anesthesia.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and 4% prilocaine for maxillary infiltrations.

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind crossover study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and 4% prilocaine in maxillary lateral incisors and first molars. Sixty subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, maxillary lateral incisor and first molar infiltrations of 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 1.8 mL of 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and 1.8 mL of 4% prilocaine, at 3 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. The teeth were pulp-tested in 3-minute cycles for a total of 60 minutes. Anesthetic success (ie, obtaining 2 consecutive 80 readings with the electric pulp tester) and onset of pulpal anesthesia were not significantly different between 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and 4% prilocaine for the lateral incisor and first molar. For both lateral incisor and first molar, 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine were equivalent for incidence of pulpal anesthesia. However, neither anesthetic agent provided an hour of pulpal anesthesia. For both lateral incisor and first molar, 4% prilocaine provided a significantly shorter duration of pulpal anesthesia compared with 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind study of the anesthetic efficacy of sodium bicarbonate buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve blocks.

The authors, using a crossover design, randomly administered, in a double-blind manner, inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) blocks using a buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine/sodium bicarbonate formulation and an unbuffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine formulation at 2 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. An electric pulp tester was used in 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes to test for anesthesia of the first and second molars, premolars, and lateral and central incisors. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained within 15 minutes, and the 80 reading was continuously sustained for 60 minutes. For the buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine/sodium bicarbonate formulation, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 10-71%. For the unbuffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine formulation, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 10-72%. No significant differences between the 2 anesthetic formulations were noted. The buffered lidocaine formulation did not statistically result in faster onset of pulpal anesthesia or less pain during injection than did the unbuffered lidocaine formulation. We concluded that buffering a 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine with sodium bicarbonate, as was formulated in the current study, did not statistically increase anesthetic success, provide faster onset, or result in less pain of injection when compared with unbuffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for an IAN block.

The efficacy of a repeated buccal infiltration of articaine in prolonging duration of pulpal anesthesia in the mandibular first molar.

Previous studies have shown declining rates of pulpal anesthesia over 60 minutes when a cartridge of 4% articaine is used with 1:100,000 epinephrine for buccal infiltration in the mandibular first molar. The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, single-blind, crossover study comparing the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with 2 sets of mandibular first molar buccal infiltrations, given in 2 separate appointments, to 86 adult subjects: an initial infiltration of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine plus a repeated infiltration of the same anesthetic and dose given 25 minutes following the initial infiltration versus an initial infiltration of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine plus a mock repeated infiltration given 25 minutes following the initial infiltration. The authors used an electric pulp tester to test the first molar for anesthesia in 3-minute cycles for 112 minutes after the injections. The repeated infiltration significantly improved pulpal anesthesia from 28 minutes through 109 minutes in the mandibular first molar. A repeated infiltration of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine given 25 minutes after an initial infiltration of the same type and dose of anesthetic significantly improved the duration of pulpal anesthesia, when compared with only an initial buccal infiltration, in the mandibular first molar.

Pulpal Anesthesia of Adjacent Teeth Following Infiltration of 2% Lidocaine With 1:100,000 Epinephrine in the Maxillary Lateral Incisor and First Molar.

The purpose of this study was to determine anesthetic success in adjacent teeth following a primary infiltration of the maxillary lateral incisor and first molar using 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Three hundred eight asymptomatic subjects received an infiltration of a cartridge of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine over the maxillary lateral incisor (163 subjects) or first molar (145 subjects). Pulpal anesthesia of the injected tooth and adjacent mesial and distal teeth was monitored with the electric pulp tester in 2-minute cycles for a total of 60 minutes. No response from the subject at the maximum output (80 reading) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Comparisons of the odds of pulpal anesthesia (defined as an 80/80 response to electric pulp testing over 60 minutes) between the experimentally injected tooth and adjacent teeth were analyzed using mixed-models, repeated-measures logistic regression. When compared with the lateral incisor infiltration, the adjacent mesial tooth (central incisor) and distal tooth (canine) achieved statistically lower anesthetic success. When compared with the first molar, the mesial tooth (second premolar) did not differ statistically. However, significant differences were shown between the first molar and the second molar, with the distal tooth (second molar) achieving a statistically higher rate of pulpal anesthesia, which was related to a better duration of anesthesia. For asymptomatic patients, local anesthesia of the adjacent mesial (central incisor) and distal (canine) teeth to the infiltrated lateral incisor had lower pulpal anesthetic success. Because standard infiltration anesthesia of the lateral incisor is of short duration, repeating the infiltration at 30 minutes will result in a high incidence of pulpal anesthesia for 60 minutes. Local anesthesia of the adjacent distal tooth to the first molar (second molar) had a statistically higher rate of total pulpal anesthesia than the infiltrated first molar due to the longer duration of pulpal anesthesia. However, if pulpal anesthesia is required for 60 minutes in the first and second molars, the clinician may need to add an additional infiltration to ensure anesthesia.

An Evaluation of Ibuprofen Versus Ibuprofen/Acetaminophen for Postoperative Endodontic Pain in Patients With Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis and Symptomatic Apical Periodontitis.

The purpose of this investigation was to compare ibuprofen versus an ibuprofen/acetaminophen combination for postoperative pain control in a patient model specific to teeth diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and symptomatic apical periodontitis. One hundred and two patients presenting with moderate to severe pain from a maxillary or mandibular posterior tooth diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and symptomatic apical periodontitis were included. Following local anesthetic administration, complete endodontic cleaning and shaping was performed. Patients were randomly assigned to receive identically appearing tablets of ibuprofen 200 mg or a combination of ibuprofen 200 mg/acetaminophen 216.7 mg with instructions to take 3 tablets every 6 hours as needed for pain. Patients were also given a prescription for an escape medication to take if the study medications did not adequately control their pain. A 4-day diary was used to record pain ratings and medication use. Moderate to severe pain was experienced by 59-61% of the patients on postoperative day 1 and 50-57% of the patients on day 2, with the pain ratings decreasing over the next 2 days. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in postoperative pain, percussion pain, or medication use. There was no difference between ibuprofen and the combination of ibuprofen/acetaminophen in the reduction of postoperative pain following endodontic debridement in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and symptomatic apical periodontitis.