Addition of 2 mg dexamethasone to improve the anesthetic efficacy of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine administered for inferior alveolar nerve block to patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in the mandibular molars: a randomized double-blind clinical trial

Methods@#In a double-blinded setup, 124 patients randomly received either of the following injections: 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine, 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine mixed with 2 mg dexamethasone, or plain 2% lidocaine mixed with 2 mg dexamethasone, which were injected as a primary IANB. Ten minutes after injection, patients with profound lip numbness underwent electric and thermal pulp sensibility tests. Patients who responded positively to the tests were categorized as “failed” anesthesia and received supplemental anesthesia. The remaining patients underwent endodontic treatment using a rubber dam. Anesthetic success was defined as “no pain or faint/weak/mild pain” during endodontic access preparation and instrumentation (HP visual analog scale score < 55 mm). The effect of the anesthetic solutions on the maximum change in heart rate was also evaluated. The Pearson chi-square test at 5% and 1% significance was used to analyze anesthetic success rates. @*Results@#The 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine, 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine mixed with 2 mg dexamethasone, and plain 2% lidocaine mixed with 2 mg dexamethasone groups had anesthetic success rates of 34%, 59%, and 29%, respectively. The addition of dexamethasone resulted in significantly better results (P < 0.001, χ 2 = 9.07, df = 2). @*Conclusions@#The addition of dexamethasone to 2% lidocaine with epinephrine, administered as an IANB, can improve the anesthetic success rates during the endodontic management of symptomatic mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis.

Does the presence and amount of epinephrine in 2% lidocaine affect its anesthetic efficacy in the management of symptomatic maxillary molars with irreversible pulpitis?

Background@#This was a randomized controlled clinical trial that aimed to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 2% lidocaine combined with different concentrations of epinephrine (plain, 1:200,000 and 1:80,000) during endodontic treatment of maxillary molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. @*Methods@#The trial included 144 adult patients who were randomly allocated to three treatment groups. All patients received buccal-plus-palatal infiltration. After 10 min, pulp sensibility testing was performed using an electric pulp test (EPT). If a tooth responded positively, anesthesia was considered to have failed. In the case of a negative EPT response, endodontic access was initiated under rubber dam isolation. The success of anesthesia was defined as having a pain score less than 55 on the Heft Parker visual analog scale (HP VAS), which was categorized as ‘no pain’ or ‘faint/weak/mild’ pain on the HP VAS. Baseline pre-injection and post-injection maximum heart rates were recorded. The Pearson chi-square test was used to analyze the anesthetic success rates at 5% significance. @*Results@#Plain 2% lidocaine and 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 1:80,000 epinephrine had anesthetic success rates of 18.75%, 72.9%, and 82.3%, respectively. Statistical analysis indicated significant differences between the groups (P < 0.001, χ2 = 47.5, df = 2). The maximum heart rate increase was seen with 2% lidocaine solution with epinephrine. @*Conclusion@#Adding epinephrine to 2% lidocaine significantly improves its anesthetic success rates during the root canal treatment of maxillary molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

Effect of relative head position on the anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block during endodontic treatment of patients with irreversible pulpitis

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this prospective randomized single-blind clinical trial was to evaluate the effect of tilting the head on the anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. METHODS: Ninety-two patients were divided into two groups: the first group received IANB and the head was tilted in the direction of the block for 15 min, whereas the second group received IANB and the head was tilted to the opposite side. Access cavity preparation was initiated after 15 min. Success was defined as no pain or faint/weak/mild pain during endodontic access preparation and instrumentation. The anesthetic success rates were analyzed by Pearson chi-square test at 5% significance levels. RESULTS: The same side position and opposite side position yielded 41% and 30% anesthetic success rates, respectively; there was no significant difference between the two sides. CONCLUSIONS: Relative head position has no effect on the anesthetic success rate of IANB.