Cambios Hemodinámicos Asociados a Exodoncias de Terceros Molares Inferiores con el Uso de Articaína 4 % y/o Lidocaína 2 %: Una revisión sistemática / Hemodynamic Changes Associated with Lower Third Molar Extractions with the Use of Articaine 4 % and/or Lidocaine 2 %: A systematic Review

La exodoncia de los terceros molares inferiores es uno de los procedimientos clínicos más comunes en el cual el control del dolor mediante el bloqueo anestésico del nervio alveolar inferior, bucal y lingual resulta ser fundament al y la manera más común de hacerlo es mediante la infiltración de soluciones de anestesia local. Entre ellos la lidocaína y articaína son algunos de los más comunes y pueden estar asociado a vasoconstrictores como la epinefrina que puede provocar aumento de la presión arterial y frecuencia cardíaca razón por la cual se hace necesario la monitorización de cambios hemodinámicos durante la cirugía. Describir los cambios hemodinámicos asociados al uso de lidocaína al 2 % y/ o articaína al 4 % en la presión sistólica y diastólica, frecuencia cardiaca y saturación parcial de oxígeno en relación a distintos tiempos operatorios. Se realizó una revisión sistemática en las bases de datos de PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science y Sciencedirect. Se analizaron 7 ensayos clínicos controlados en los que utilizaron articaína al 4 % y/o lidocaína al 2 % con epinefrina al 1:100,000 y/o 1:200,000 en volúmenes de 1,8 a 5,4 mL, en los cuales evaluaron la presión sistólica y diastólica, frecuencia cardiaca y saturación parcial de oxígeno en distintos tiempos de la cirugía. Si bien hubo cambios en PAS, PAD, FC y SPO2, todas se mantuvieron dentro de rangos normales bajo el uso de articaína al 4 % y lidocaína al 2 % con epinefrina 1:100,000 y/o 1:200,000 a volúmenes de 1,8 a 5,4mL medidas a distintos tiempos operatorios.

The extraction of lower third molars is one of the most common clinical procedures in which pain control through anesthetic blockade of the lower alveolar, buccal and lingual nerves turns out to be essential and the most common way to do it is through the infiltration of solutions of local anesthesia. Among them, lidocaine and articaine are some of the most common and may be associated with vasoconstrictors such as epinephrine, which can cause an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, which is why it is necessary to monitor hemodynamic changes during surgery. To describe the hemodynamic changes associated with the use of 2 % lidocaine and/or 4 % articaine in systolic and diastolic pressure, heart rate and partial oxygen saturation in relation to different operative times. A systematic review was carried out in the PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Sciencedirect databases. Seven controlled clinical trials were analyzed in which 4 % articaine and/or 2 % lidocaine were used with epinephrine at 1:100,000 and/or 1:200,000 in volumes of 1,8 to 5,4 mL, in which systolic pressure was evaluated. and diastolic, heart rate and partial oxygen saturation at different times of surgery. Although there were changes in SBP, DBP, HR and SPO2, all remained within normal ranges under the use of 4 % articaine and 2 % lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 and/or 1:200,000 at volumes of 1,8 to 5 .4mL measured at different operative times.

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.

Anestesia complementaria durante bloqueos fallidos del nervio alveolar inferior en casos de pulpitis irreversible / Complementary anesthesia during failed blocks of inferior alveolar nerve in cases of irre- versible pulpitis

Los investigadores realizaron un estudio con enfoque mixto, de tipo no experimental descriptivo; cuya población estuvo constituida por la totalidad de historias clínicas de pacientes que asistieron a la Clínica de Atención Odontológica de la Universidad Regional Autónoma de los Andes, durante la campaña de atención gratuita ejecutada en el periodo abril-agosto 2019, de los que se seleccionaron 30 historias clínicas mediante un muestreo no probabilístico en base a criterios. La misma tuvo el objetivo de caracterizar el uso anestésico de las infiltraciones vestibulares e intraligamentarias utilizando articaína al 4% con epinefrina 1: 100 000, en molares y premolares inferiores diagnosticados con PI, después de un bloqueo fallido del nervio alveolar inferior en el contexto investigado. Sin un margen estadísticamente no significativo, en el caso de las mujeres, la inyección intraligamentaria mostró mejores resultados por (p= 0,109). La inyección intraligamentaria resultó más efectiva en los premolares (p=0,847). La inyección intraligamentaria obtuvo un 86,7% de éxito anestésico, mientras la infiltración vestibular lo fue en un 80% con respecto a la totalidad de la muestra donde se aplicaron (p=0,624).

The researchers carried out a study with a mixed approach, of a descriptive non-experimental type. The population was made up of all the medical records of patients who were attended at the Dental Care Clinic of the Autonomous Regional University of the Andes, during the free care campaign carried out in the period April-August 2019. 30 medical records were selected through non-probability sampling based on criteria. The objective of this study was to characterize the anesthetic use of vestibular and intraligamentary infiltrations using 4% articaine with epinephri- ne 1: 100,000, in lower molars and premolars diagnosed with IP after a failed block of inferior alveolar nerve in the investigated context. There was no a statistically insignificant margin, in the case of women, the intraligamentary injection showed better results by (p = 0.109). The intraligamentary injection was more effective in the premolars (p = 0.847). Intra-league injec- tion obtained 86.7% anesthetic success, while vestibular infiltration was 80% with respect to the entire sample where they were applied (p = 0.624).

Clinical evaluation of efficacy of transcortical anesthesia for the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the pain levels during anesthesia and the efficacy of the QuickSleeper intraosseous (IO) injection system and conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in impacted mandibular third molar surgery.METHODS: This prospective randomized clinical trial included 30 patients (16 women, 14 men) with bilateral symmetrical impacted mandibular third molars. Thirty subjects randomly received either the IO injection or conventional IANB at two successive appointments. A split-mouth design was used in which each patient underwent treatment of a tooth with one of the techniques and treatment of the homologous contralateral tooth with the other technique. The subjects received 1.8 mL of 2% articaine. Subjects' demographic data, pain levels during anesthesia induction, tooth extractions, and mouth opening on postoperative first, third, and seventh days were recorded. Pain assessment ratings were recorded using the 100-mm visual analog scale. The latency and duration of the anesthetic effect, complications, and operation duration were also analyzed in this study. The duration of anesthetic effect was considered using an electric pulp test and by probing the soft tissue with an explorer.RESULTS: Thirty patients aged between 18 and 47 years (mean age, 25 years) were included in this study. The IO injection was significantly less painful with lesser soft tissue numbness and quicker onset of anesthesia and lingual mucosa anesthesia with single needle penetration than conventional IANB. Moreover, 19 out of 30 patients (63%) preferred transcortical anesthesia. Mouth opening on postoperative first day was significantly better with intraosseous injection than with conventional IANB (P = 0.013).CONCLUSION: The IO anesthetic system is a good alternative to IANB for extraction of the third molar with less pain during anesthesia induction and sufficient depth of anesthesia for the surgical procedure.

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)

Pain perception and efficacy of local analgesia using 2% lignocaine, buffered lignocaine, and 4% articaine in pediatric dental procedures

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the pain perception and anesthetic efficacy of 2% lignocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, buffered lignocaine, and 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine for the inferior alveolar nerve block. METHODS: This was a double-blind crossover study involving 48 children aged 5–10 years, who received three inferior alveolar nerve block injections in three appointments scheduled one week apart from the next. Pain on injection was assessed using the Wong-Baker Faces pain scale and the sound eye motor scale (SEM). Efficacy of anesthesia was assessed by subjective (tingling or numbness of the lip, tongue, and corner of mouth) and objective signs (pain on probing). RESULTS: Pain perception on injection assessed with Wong-Baker scale was significantly different between buffered lignocaine and lignocaine (P < 0.001) and between buffered lignocaine and articaine (P = 0.041). The onset of anesthesia was lowest for buffered lignocaine, with a statistically significant difference between buffered lignocaine and lignocaine (P < 0.001). Moreover, the efficacy of local analgesia assessed using objective signs was significantly different between buffered lignocaine and lignocaine (P < 0.001) and between lignocaine and articaine. CONCLUSION: Buffered lignocaine was the least painful and the most efficacious anesthetic agent during the inferior alveolar nerve block injection in 5–10-year-old patients.

Interventions for anesthetic success in symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Local anesthetics alone or in combination with adjuncts, such as oral medications, have routinely been used for pain control during endodontic treatment. The best clinical choice amongst the vast numbers of agents and techniques available for pain control for irreversible pulpitis is unclear. This network meta-analysis combined the available evidence on agents and techniques for pulpal anesthesia in the maxilla and mandible, in order to identify the best amongst these approaches statistically, as a basis for future clinical trials.METHODS: Randomized trials in MEDLINE, DARE, and COCHRANE databases were screened based on inclusion criteria and data were extracted. Heterogeneity was assessed and odds ratios were used to estimate effects. Inconsistencies between direct and indirect pooled estimates were evaluated by H-statistics. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation working group approach was used to assess evidence quality.RESULTS: Sixty-two studies (nine studies in the maxilla and 53 studies in the mandible) were included in the meta-analysis. Increased mandibular pulpal anesthesia success was observed on premedication with aceclofenac + paracetamol or supplemental 4% articaine buccal infiltration or ibuprofen+paracetamol premedication, all the above mentioned with 2% lignocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). No significant difference was noted for any of the agents investigated in terms of the success rate of maxillary pulpal anesthesia.CONCLUSION: Direct and indirect comparisons indicated that some combinations of IANB with premedication and/or supplemental infiltration had a greater chance of producing successful mandibular pulpal anesthesia. No ideal technique for maxillary anesthesia emerged. Randomized clinical trials with increased sample size may be needed to provide more conclusive data. Our findings suggest that further high-quality studies are required in order to provide definitive direction to clinicians regarding the best agents and techniques to use for mandibular and maxillary anesthesia for irreversible pulpitis.

Resistance to local anesthesia in people with the Ehlers-Danlos Syndromes presenting for dental surgery

BACKGROUND: People with the Ehlers-Danlos Syndromes (EDS), a group of heritable disorders of connective tissue, often report experiencing dental procedure pain despite local anesthetic (LA) use. Clinicians have been uncertain how to interpret this apparent LA resistance, as comparison of EDS and non-EDS patient experience is limited to anecdotal evidence and small case series. The primary goal of this hypothesis-generating study was to investigate the recalled adequacy of pain prevention with LA administered during dental procedures in a large cohort of people with and without EDS. A secondary exploratory aim asked people with EDS to recall comparative LA experiences. METHODS: We administered an online survey through various social media platforms to people with EDS and their friends without EDS, asking about past dental procedures, LA exposures, and the adequacy of procedure pain prevention. Among EDS respondents who both received LA and recalled the specific LA used, we compared agent-specific pain prevention for lidocaine, procaine, bupivacaine, mepivacaine, and articaine. RESULTS: Among the 980 EDS respondents who had undergone a dental procedure LA, 88% (n = 860) recalled inadequate pain prevention. Among 249 non EDS respondents only 33% (n = 83) recalled inadequate pain prevention (P < 0.001 compared to EDS respondents). The agent with the highest EDS-respondent reported success rate was articaine (30%), followed by bupivacaine (25%), and mepivacaine (22%). CONCLUSIONS: EDS survey respondents reported nearly three times the rate of LA non-response compared to non-EDS respondents, suggesting that LAs were less effective in preventing their pain associated with routine office dental procedures.

Hemodynamic Behavior in Third Molar Surgeries Using Lidocaine or Articaine / Comportamiento Hemodinámico en Cirugías de los Terceros Molares Utilizando Lidocaína vs Articaina

SUMMARY: The aim of this research was to assess the hemodynamic variations during the extraction of impacted lower third molars using lidocaine 2 % or articaine 4 %, as local anesthetics. Fourteen patients with a mean age of 22.4 (SD=3.25), were submitted to the bilateral extraction of lower third molars, with an interval of three to four weeks between the two extractions. Systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, heart rate and oxygen saturation in the blood were assessed at seven specific time points: baseline; anesthetic puncture; two minutes after anesthesia; osteotomy; suture and five minutes after the procedure had been completed. The statistical analysis involved descriptive analysis, the Shapiro-Wilk test, the Mann-Whitney test, the t-test and the repeated measurements test. No significant differences were found for any of the hemodynamic behavior variables when comparing lidocaine 2 % and articaine 4 %. Significant differences were found between the time points assessed within each group, particularly in relation to the variable heart rate. In the articaine group, systolic blood pressure exhibited a significant decrease five minutes after the procedure. There were no significant variations in hemodynamic behavior between the two different anesthetic groups (articaine 4 % and lidocaine 2 %).

RESUMEN: El objetivo de esta investigación fue evaluar las variaciones hemodinámicas durante la extracción de terceros molares inferiores impactados utilizando lidocaína al 2 % o articaína al 4 %, como anestésicos locales. Catorce pacientes con una edad promedio de 22,4 (SD = 3,25), fueron sometidos a la extracción bilateral de terceros molares inferiores, con un intervalo de tres a cuatro semanas entre las dos extracciones. Se evaluaron la presión arterial sistólica, la presión arterial diastólica, la presión arterial media, la frecuencia cardíaca y la saturación de oxígeno en la sangre, en siete momentos específicos: línea base; punción anestésica; dos minutos después de la anestesia; osteotomía; sutura y cinco minutos después de que el procedimiento fue completado. El análisis estadístico involucró el análisis descriptivo, la prueba de Shapiro-Wilk, la prueba de Mann-Whitney, la prueba t y la prueba de mediciones repetidas. No se encontraron diferencias significativas para ninguna de las variables de comportamiento hemodinámico al comparar lidocaína 2 % y articaína 4 %. Se encontraron diferencias significativas entre los puntos de tiempo evaluados dentro de cada grupo, particularmente en relación con la frecuencia cardíaca variable. En el grupo de articaína, la presión arterial sistólica exhibió una disminución significativa cinco minutos después del procedimiento. No se observaron variaciones significativas en el comportamiento hemodinámico entre los dos grupos anestésicos diferentes (articaína 4 % y lidocaína 2 %).

Inferior alveolar nerve block by intraosseous injection with Quicksleeper® at the retromolar area in mandibular third molar surgery

BACKGROUND: There are many techniques of inferior alveolar nerve block injection (IANBI); one among them is the computer-assisted intraosseous injection (CAIOI). Here we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of CAIOI with Quicksleeper® in mandibular third molar surgery. METHODS: This study is a clinical, single-blind, randomized, split-mouth, controlled trial including 25 patients (10 males and 15 females, mean age 21 years). The patients underwent surgical removal of bilateral mandibular third molars with two different IANBI techniques. One side was injected using Quicksleeper®, and the other side was injected using a conventional IANBI. Both techniques used one cartridge (1.7 ml) of 1:100,000 epinephrine 4% articaine. A supplementary injection was used if necessary. All volumes of anesthetic agent used were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using paired t-test and Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: This research showed that CAIOI has faster onset and shorter duration of action than IANBI (P < 0.05). The pain was similar in both techniques. In the CAIOI group, one-third of the cases could be completed without additional anesthesia. The remaining two-thirds required minimal supplementary volume of anesthesia. The success rates were 68% for CAIOI and 72% for IANBI, respectively. CONCLUSION: CAIOI is an advantageous anesthetic technique. It can be used as an alternative to conventional IANBI for mandibular third molar surgery.

Local anesthesia for mandibular third molar extraction

Mandibular third molar extraction is commonly performed in dental clinics. However, the optimal method of anesthesia has not been established for this procedure. The conventional inferior alveolar nerve block is the most widely used method. However, its success rate is not high and it may lead to complications, such as aspiration and nerve injury. Therefore, various anesthesia methods are being investigated. Articaine has been proven to be efficacious in a number of studies and is being used with increasing frequency in clinical practice. In this review article, we will briefly review various local anesthesia techniques, anesthetics, and a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery (CCLAD) system, which reduces pain by controlling the speed of drug injection, for mandibular third molar extraction.

Structural damage to periodontal tissues at varying rate of anesthetic injection

BACKGROUND: Incorrect administration of an anesthetic during local anesthesia is one of the most important causes of pain symptoms in patients scheduled for dental procedures. The current study assessed the severity of damage to periodontal tissue following different rates of anesthetic administration. METHODS: The research was conducted on 50 outbred male rats with a body mass of 180–240 g. The anesthetic used was 1% articaine. RESULTS: The results showed that administration of the anesthetic at a rapid pace caused structural damage to the periodontal tissue. Further, signs of impaired microcirculation were noted at all rates of administration. Biochemical studies demonstrated changes in the level of glucose and enzymes with the rapid introduction of the anesthetic, indicating severe systemic stress response of the body. CONCLUSIONS: Injection of local anesthetic at any rate of introduction induces vascular congestion in the microcirculatory bloodstream and exudative reactions. Rapid introduction of an anesthetic causes progression of structural changes in the gingival tissue.

Eficacia de lidocaína 2 % y articaína 4 % al usar la técnica infraorbitaria modificada para incisivos y premolares maxilares / Efficacy of 2 % lidocaine and 4 % articaine with the modified infraorbital nerve block to anesthetize maxillary incisors and premolars

Se realizó un ensayo clínico, aleatorizado, en el cual se determinó la eficacia de la técnica infraorbitaria modificada al usar de Lidocaína 2 % y Articaína 4 %, para lograr anestesia pulpar exitosa en incisivos y premolares maxilares. Se realizó un estudio experimental, controlado doble ciego. 20 sujetos voluntarios recibieron 1,8 ml de Lidocaína 2 % y Articaína 4 % con epinefrina, en la técnica infraorbitaria modificada. Se utilizó un vitálometro para medir la anestesia pulpar exitosa en incisivos y premolares maxilares. El grado de anestesia pulpar fue considerada cuando el vitálometro alcanzó dos lecturas consecutivas a 80. Los participantes informaron además sobre anestesia de tejidos blandos y percepción de comodidad de dicha anestesia. Los datos se analizaron usando la prueba de Shapiro Wilk, Mann-Whitney y McNemar. Resultados: Se observó que en el 100 y 95 % de los incisivos centrales, no hubo anestesia pulpar exitosa para el grupo de Articaína y Lidocaína respectivamente (p=0,50). En el incisivo lateral, el 85 % y 90 % de los dientes presentaron igual comportamiento (p=0,698). El canino presentó anestesia pulpar exitosa en el 70 % de los casos para el grupo de Articaína y en el 40 % para Lidocaína, datos estadísticamente significativos (p=0,027). La anestesia de tejidos blandos fue del 100 % y el 60 % de los pacientes del grupo de articaína la refirieron como incomoda. Conclusiones. La técnica infraorbitaria modificada usando Articaína 4 % o Lidocaína al 2 % no es eficaz para lograr la anestesia pulpar en los incisivos centrales y laterales, demostrando tener una mejor tasa de éxito en caninos cuando se utiliza articaína. Los autores recomiendan anestesiar las ramas alveolares antero y medias superiores para lograr anestesia pulpar profunda en incisivos y premolares.

The aim of this study was to compare de degree of successful pulpal anesthesia in maxillary incisors and premolars applying the modified infraorbital anesthetic technique using 2 % lidocaine and 4 % articaine with epinephrine. An experimental study, controlled, double-blind was conducted. 20 volunteer subjects received 1.8 ml of 2 % lidocaine and 4 % articaine with epinephrine, in the modified infraorbital technique. An electric pulpal tester was used to measure the pulpal anesthesia in maxillary incisors and premolars. The participants informed the degree of pulpal anesthesia, soft tissue anesthesia and comfort. The data was analyzed using the Shapiro Wilk, Mann-Whitney and McNemar tests. The 100-85 % of non-anesthetized cases was observed in the central incisors (p=0.500) and 95 -90 % in the lateral incisors (p=0.500) for articaine and lidocaine respectively. At a level of canines the degree of successful pulpal anesthesia for the 4 % articaine group was 70 % and for 2 % lidocaine was 40 % (p=0.027), differences were statistically significant. At a level of first and second premolars, the degree of successful pulpal anesthesia for the 4 % articaine group was 85 % and for 2 % lidocaine was 75 %(p=0.347) The subjective incidence of the soft tissue anesthesia was 100 % and 60 % of the patients of the articaine group referred to it as uncomfortable. The modified infraorbital technique using 2 % lidocaine or 4% articaine is not effective to achieve pulpal anesthesia in central and lateral incisors, showing a better success rate in canines when using 4 % articaine. The authors recommend anesthetizing the anterior and middle superior alveolar branches to achieve successful anesthesia in incisors and premolars procedures.

Double versus single cartridge of 4% articaine infiltration into the retro-molar area for lower third molar surgery

BACKGROUND: There are no studies regarding 4% articaine infiltration injection into the retro-molar area for an impacted lower third molar (LITM) surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of infiltration using 1.7 ml (single cartridge: SC) of 4% articaine versus 3.4 ml (double cartridges: DC) of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in LITM surgery. METHOD: This study involved 30 healthy patients with symmetrical LITM. The patients were assigned to receive either a DC or SC of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a local anesthetic for each operation. Onset, duration, profoundness, need for additional anesthetic administration, total volume of anesthetic used, vitality of the tooth, and pain score during operation were recorded. RESULTS: The DC of 4 % articaine had a significantly higher success rate (83.3%) than did the SC (53.3%; P < 0.05). The duration of soft tissue anesthesia was longer in the DC group. The intra-operative pain was higher in the SC group with a significant (P < 0.05) requirement for a supplementary local anesthetic. CONCLUSION: We concluded that using DC for the infiltration injection had a higher success rate, longer duration of anesthesia, less intra-operative pain, and a lower amount of additional anesthesia than SC in the surgical removal of LITM. We recommend that a DC of 4% articaine and a 1:100,000 epinephrine infiltration in the retro-molar region can be an alternative anesthetic for LITM surgery.

4% lidocaine versus 4% articaine for inferior alveolar nerve block in impacted lower third molar surgery

BACKGROUND: No study has compared lidocaine with articaine, each at a concentration of 4% and combined with epinephrine. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 4% lidocaine with that of 4% articaine, with a concentration of 1:100,000 epinephrine added to each, in an inferior alveolar nerve block for surgery on impacted lower third molars. METHOD: This study was conducted at the Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University in Bangkok, Thailand. The randomized, single-blind, comparative split-mouth study was carried out in patients with symmetrically impacted lower third molars, as identified on panoramic radiographs. Each patient underwent surgery for the removal of the lower third molars by the same surgeon under local anesthesia at two separate visits, 3 weeks apart. The onset and duration of local anesthesia, intra-operative pain, surgical duration, and number of additional anesthetics administered were recorded. RESULTS: The subjective and objective onset of action for the local anesthetics showed statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). However, the intra-operative pain, surgical duration, duration of local anesthesia, and number of additional anesthetics administered did not show statistically significant differences. CONCLUSION: The use of 4% articaine for the inferior alveolar nerve block was clinically more effective in the onset of subjective and objective anesthesia as compared with the use of 4% lidocaine. Based on the pain scores from the visual analogue scale, 4% lidocaine provided more analgesia during the procedure, and patients noted less intra-operative pain than with 4% articaine; however, the difference was not clinically significant.

Comparison of anaesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine primary buccal infiltration versus 2% lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block in symptomatic mandibular first molar teeth

Objective: To evaluate success of pulpal anaesthesia of mandibular 1st molar by using 4% articaine in buccal infiltration versus 2% lidocaine in inferior alveolar nerve block

Study Design: Randomized control trial

Place and Duration of Study: Department of Operative Dentistry, Sardar Begum Dental College, Gandhara University, Peshawar, from March to August 2014

Methodology: One hundred and fifty-six emergency patients, who had 1st molar diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis, participated in the study. Subjects were divided into two groups by random allocation. One group received 4% articaine buccal infiltration and the other group received inferior alveolar nerve block of 2% lidocaine. Subjects' self-reported pain response was recorded on Heft Parker Visual Analogue Scale after local anaesthetic administration during access cavity preparation and pulp extirpation

Results: Mean age of subjects was 31.46 +/- 10.994 years. The success rate of 4% buccal infiltration was 76.9%; whereas the success rate of 2% lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block was 62.8%. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups

Conclusion: 4% articaine buccal infiltration can be considered a viable alternative to 2% lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block in securing successful pulpal anaesthesia for endodontic therapy

Perception of discomfort during injection and the need for supplemental anesthesia in the intraosseous technique using 4 per cent articaine / Percepción de incomodidad durante la inyección y necesidad de anestesia suplementaria en anestesia intraósea usando articaína al 4

The authors conducted an experimental study to determine patient perception of discomfort during injection and the need for supplemental anesthesia using the intraosseous technique with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in patients with symptomatic pulpitis in mandibular molars. At different clinical sessions, researchers used 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine to apply intraosseous injection (Group 1) or inferior alveolar nerve block (Group 2). Each technique was applied in 35 patients. In each group, the need for additional anesthesia was determined and patient discomfort during injection was assessed with a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) test. In the intraosseous group, no supplemental technique was needed in 22 patients (62.85 %), and results were similar for the inferior alveolar technique (n: 23 65.71%). The intraosseous technique proved to be more comfortable than the mandibular technique (18 patients - 25.7%). This study found that the use of intraosseous technique with 4% articaine shows promising results regarding patient comfort and reducing the need for additional anesthesia.

Los autores condujeron un estudio experimental para deter minar la eficacia de la técnica anestésica intraósea usando articaína al 4% con epinefrina 1:100.000, en pacientes con pulpitis aguda en molares mandibulares. En diferentes sesiones clínicas, los miembros del equipo de investigadores usaron articaína al 4% con epinefrina 1:100.000 para inducir anestesia mandibular con la técnica intraósea (Grupo 1) o con el bloqueo del nervio alveolar inferior (Grupo 2), se aplicó cada técnica en 35 pacientes con diagnóstico de pulpitis aguda en molares inferiores. En cada grupo, se determinó la necesidad de hacer anestesia complementaria y la comodidad del paciente con un test Escala Visual Analoga. Un total de 70 pacientes fueron enrolados en este estudio (35 sujetos por grupo). En el grupo de intraósea no fue necesaria la aplicación de técnicas complementarias en 22 pacientes (31.4%), resultados similares en la técnica alveolar inferior (n: 23 32.8%). La técnica intraósea demostró ser más cómoda al compararla con técnica mandibular (18 pacientes 25.7%). Este estudio demostró que el uso de la técnica intraósea conarticaína al 4%, arrojó resultados prometedores en lo que a comodidad y reducción en la anestesia complementaria hace referencia.

Articaine (4%) with epinephrine (1:100,000 or 1:200,000) in inferior alveolar nerve block: Effects on the vital signs and onset, and duration of anesthesia

BACKGROUND: This prospective, randomized, double-blind, clinical study was conducted to compare the effects of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (A100) and 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine (A200) on the vital signs and onset and duration of anesthesia in an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). METHODS: In the first appointment, an IANB was performed by injecting A100 or A200 in 1 side of the mouth (right or left) randomly in patients referred for extraction of both their first mandibular molars. In the second appointment, the protocol was repeated and the other anesthetic solution was injected in the side that had not received the block in the previous session. Systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP) and pulse rate were measured during and 5 min after the injection. The onset and duration of anesthesia were also evaluated. Data were analyzed using t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test, and p-value was set at 0.05. RESULTS: SBP and pulse rate changes were slightly more with A100; however, DBP changes were more with A200, although the differences were not significant (P > 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the parameters evaluated in this study. The onset and duration of anesthesia, and the changes in SBP, DBP, and pulse rate during and 5 min after the injection were the same in both the groups. CONCLUSIONS: For an IANB, A200 and A100 were equally efficient and successful in producing the block. Epinephrine concentration did not influence the effects of 4% articaine.

Evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine as buccal infiltration vs 2% lidocaine as IANB in the mandibular 1st molar with irreversible pulpitis

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine for buccal infiltration and inferior alveolar nerve block respectively in patients experiencing irreversible pulpitis in permanent mandibular first molars. Sixty emergency patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis of a mandibular first molar ran-domly divided into two groups. Thirty patients received buccal infiltration of 1.7 ml of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and thirty patients received standard inferior alveolar nerve block with 1.8 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine. Endodontic access was begun 10 minutes after solution deposition, success [anesthetic efficacy] was defined as none or mild pain [Visual Analogue Scale recordings] on endodontic access preparation or pulp extirpation. Twenty-two patients out of 30 did not experience pain with 4% articaine [success = 52.4%] and 20 out of 30 patients did not experience pain in 2% lignocaine group [success = 47.6%]. There was no statistically significant difference between the articaine formulation as buccal infiltration and lidocaine formulation as IANB with regard to anesthetic success [p value =0.220]. Even though buccal infiltration of 4% articaine and IANB of 2% lidocaine were equally effective, buccal infiltration can be considered a viable substitute in IANB for anesthetizing mandibular first molar with irreversible pulpitis

Comparison of articaine and lignocaine for uncomplicated maxillary exodontia

To compare single buccal articaine injection versus conventional lignocaine buccal and palatal injections for uncomplicated maxillary tooth extractions. Single blinded randomized control trial. The outpatient department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, from February to September 2011. Patients aged 20 - 60 years under simple extraction in the maxillary arch were included in the study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups-A and B toss method. Maxillary teeth were divided into three groups; group-1 [posterior teeth] including first, second and third molars on either side, group-2 [middle teeth] including the premolars and group-3 [anterior teeth] including incisors and canines. Group-A [study group] received buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with 1:200,000 adrenaline and group-B [control group] received buccal and palatal infiltration of 2% lignocaine/HCl with 1:100,000 adrenaline. Faces Pain Scale [FPS] and a Visual Analogue Score [VAS] was used for objective and subjective assessment of per operative pain respectively. A total of 194 patients were included in the study. Group-A comprised of 100 patients while group-B consisted of 94 patients. The mean age of the total sample was 41.12 +/- 13.6 years. Statistically significant difference was found for the VAS scores of anteriors [p=0.9], premolars [p=0.2] and molars [p=0.2] for groups A and B. The FPS scores for both groups were also statistically insignificant [p=0.864]. Buccal infiltration with a single articaine injection and lignocaine buccal and palatal infiltration were equally effective for maxillary exodontia