ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The study was designed as a randomized double-blind trial to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) and infiltration anesthetic techniques to anesthetize mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis. METHODS: The study was composed of 2 test arms and 1 control arm. Subjects in the test arms received either a standard IANB or a buccal infiltration (B Infil) of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, whereas the subjects in the control arm received a standard IANB of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Subject's self-reported pain response was recorded on Heft Parker Visual Analogue Scale after local anesthetic administration during access preparation and pulp extirpation. RESULTS: For statistical analysis Pearson χ(2), Student's paired t test, 1-way analysis of variance, and Friedman tests showed no significant difference in success rates among the 3 arms of the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Although B Infil and IANB of 4% articaine were equally effective, B Infil can be considered a viable alterative in IANB for pulpal anesthesia in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis.
Subject(s)
Anesthesia, Dental , Anesthetics, Local/administration & dosage , Carticaine/administration & dosage , Cheek/innervation , Dental Pulp/innervation , Mandibular Nerve/drug effects , Nerve Block/methods , Pulpitis/therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Double-Blind Method , Epinephrine/administration & dosage , Female , Humans , Injections , Lidocaine/administration & dosage , Male , Molar/pathology , Pain Measurement , Prospective Studies , Pulpectomy/instrumentation , Root Canal Preparation/methods , Treatment Outcome , Vasoconstrictor Agents/administration & dosage , Young AdultABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare the shaping ability of three rotary filing systems; constant taper K3 instruments, constant taper ProFile instruments and progressive taper ProTaper rotary instruments in clear resin blocks with simulated curved root canals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty five resin blocks were divided into three groups. Group A preparation was conducted with K3, Group B with ProFile and Group C with ProTaper instruments. Pre and post instrumentation images were superimposed and assessment of the canal shape was completed with a computer image analysis program at 14 levels of the root canal system. RESULTS: Group A inner and outer curvature pre and post instrumentation values were significantly different (P<0.05) at levels 3; at level 13 only the outer curvature and levels 6, 7, 8 the inner curvature had significantly different values between pre and post instrumentation. Group C had significant P values (P<0.05) at levels 2, 3, 4, 12, 13 in the outer curvature and at levels 6, 7, 8 of the inner curvature. CONCLUSION: Overall, all three rotary instruments maintained root canal curvatures well. ProTaper instruments significantly removed more resin material from outer canal curvature in the apical third when compared to the other two groups.
