Inferior alveolar nerve block success of 2% mepivacaine versus 4% articaine in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in mandibular molars: A randomized double-blind single-centre clinical trial.

AIM: The aim of this study was to assess inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) success of 2% mepivacaine (Scandonest 2%, Septodont, France) and 4% articaine (Septanest 4%, Septodont) in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP) in mandibular molars during access cavity preparation and instrumentation. METHODOLOGY: Three hundred and thirty patients with moderate-to-severe pain in mandibular molars with SIP randomly received either 3.6 ml 2% mepivacaine hydrochloride with 1:100 000 adrenalin or 3.4 ml 4% articaine hydrochloride with 1:100 000 adrenalin (n = 165). Intraoperative pain (IOP) intensity was assessed during access cavity preparation and canal instrumentation using 11-point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Overall success was considered if the patient felt no-to-mild pain without the need for supplemental anaesthesia throughout treatment; the incidence of need for supplemental anaesthesia was also recorded. Data were statistically analysed using Mann-Whitney U- and Chi-squared (χ2 ) tests. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of anaesthetic failure were calculated. The effect of pre-disposing factors on outcome variables was assessed using multivariable regression analyses. None of the participants reported any adverse effects. RESULTS: Baseline variables were balanced between groups (p > .05). The IOP intensity during access cavity preparation and canal instrumentation was similar for both groups (p > .05). IOP intensity was associated with preoperative pain intensity and tooth type (p < .05). Overall anaesthetic success rate was 35.8% for mepivacaine and 41.2% for articaine (p > .05) with a relative risk of failure [95% CI] 1.09 [0.92, 1.30]. The need for supplemental anaesthesia occurred 43.6% and 38.2% with mepivacaine and articaine respectively (p > .05; RR [95% CI]: 1.14 [0.88, 1.48]). Preoperative pain level and age were associated with the need for supplemental anaesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: 2% mepivacaine and 4% articaine demonstrate similar IANB success rates for mandibular molars with SIP. Intraoperative pain experience during endodontic treatment can be associated with preoperative pain, tooth type and age.

Clinical and microbiological effects of ultrasonically activated irrigation versus syringe irrigation during endodontic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

This study aimed to systematically review clinical and microbiology-related effects of ultrasonically activated irrigation (UAI) compared to syringe irrigation (SI) during endodontic treatment. Electronic databases searching and manual searching were conducted. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included comparing UAI to SI. The RoB 2.0 Cochrane tool was used for risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment. The main outcomes were postoperative pain, treatment failure, and microbiology-related outcomes. Qualitative and quantitative analyses, wherever applicable, were performed. Risk ratios (RR) and [standardized] mean differences {[S]MD} were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. Certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE tool. Ten RCTs were included. UAI reduced pain incidence within the first 24 h (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.35-0.71, 308 teeth) and microbial counts (SMDpooled - 0.40, 95% CI [- 0.78, - 0.02], I2 = 0%, 126 teeth) than SI in non-vital teeth with apical periodontitis (AP). Both groups, however, had similar effects regarding pain intensity, lipopolysaccharide amounts, and the incidence of rescue-analgesic intake, treatment failure, and microbial presence (p > 0.05). CoE ranged from low to very low. Very limited evidence suggests that UAI could reduce postoperative-pain risk within the first 24 h and microbial counts for non-vital teeth with AP compared to SI. Most meta-analyses, however, are based on very few studies, mostly low-powered, with an overall very-low-to-low CoE. Further well-designed, larger RCTs are, thus, required.