ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Achieving adequate anesthesia with inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) is of great importance during dental procedures. The aim of the present study was to assess the success rate of two anesthetic agents (bupivacaine and lidocaine) for IANB when treating teeth with irreversible pulpitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty volunteer male and female patients who required root canal treatment of a mandibular molar due to caries participated in the present study. The inclusion criteria included prolonged pain to thermal stimulus but no spontaneous pain. The patients were randomly allocated to receive either 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine or 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine as an IANB injection. The sensitivity of the teeth to a cold test as well as the amount of pain during access cavity preparation and root canal instrumentation were recorded. Results were statistically analyzed with the Chi-Square and Fischer's exact tests. RESULTS: At the final step, fifty-nine patients were included in the study. The success rate for bupivacaine and lidocaine groups were 20.0% and 24.1%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups at any stage of the treatment procedure. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in success rates of anesthesia when bupivacaine and lidocaine were used for IANB injections to treat mandibular molar teeth with irreversible pulpitis. Neither agent was able to completely anesthetize the teeth effectively. Therefore, practitioners should be prepared to administer supplemental anesthesia to overcome pain during root canal treatment.
Subject(s)
Female , Humans , Male , Anesthesia , Anesthetics , Bupivacaine , Dental Pulp Cavity , Epinephrine , Lidocaine , Mandibular Nerve , Molar , Pulpitis , Tooth , VolunteersABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Achieving adequate anesthesia with inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) is of great importance during dental procedures. The aim of the present study was to assess the success rate of two anesthetic agents (bupivacaine and lidocaine) for IANB when treating teeth with irreversible pulpitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty volunteer male and female patients who required root canal treatment of a mandibular molar due to caries participated in the present study. The inclusion criteria included prolonged pain to thermal stimulus but no spontaneous pain. The patients were randomly allocated to receive either 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine or 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine as an IANB injection. The sensitivity of the teeth to a cold test as well as the amount of pain during access cavity preparation and root canal instrumentation were recorded. Results were statistically analyzed with the Chi-Square and Fischer's exact tests. RESULTS: At the final step, fifty-nine patients were included in the study. The success rate for bupivacaine and lidocaine groups were 20.0% and 24.1%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups at any stage of the treatment procedure. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in success rates of anesthesia when bupivacaine and lidocaine were used for IANB injections to treat mandibular molar teeth with irreversible pulpitis. Neither agent was able to completely anesthetize the teeth effectively. Therefore, practitioners should be prepared to administer supplemental anesthesia to overcome pain during root canal treatment.