Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine

The Korean Dental Society of Anesthsiology (대한치과마취과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Anesthetic efficacy of buffered 4% articaine for mandibular first molar infiltration: a crossover clinical trial

  • Kalliopi Manta (Department of Dentoalveolar Surgery, Surgical implantology and Roentgenology, Aristotle University) ;
  • Nikolaos Dabarakis (Department of Dentoalveolar Surgery, Surgical implantology and Roentgenology, Aristotle University) ;
  • Theodoros Lillis (Department of Dentoalveolar Surgery, Surgical implantology and Roentgenology, Aristotle University) ;
  • Ioannis Fotopoulos (Department of Dentoalveolar Surgery, Surgical implantology and Roentgenology, Aristotle University)
  • Received : 2023.03.14
  • Accepted : 2023.04.28
  • Published : 2023.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The limited studies on the effect of buffering on the clinical efficacy of articaine have reported controversial results. The purpose of this study was to clinically compare the pain of injection, anesthetic success, onset, and duration of pulpal anesthesia of buffered 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 versus a non-buffered 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 formulation for buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar. Methods: Sixty-three volunteers were enrolled in the study. All volunteers received two injections consisting of a single mandibular first molar buccal infiltration with 1.8 ml of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 and 1.8 ml of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 buffered with 8.4% sodium bicarbonate. The infiltrations were applied in two separate appointments spaced at least one week apart. After injection of the anesthetic solution at the examined site, the first molar was pulp-tested every 2 min for the next 60 min. Results: Successful pulpal anesthesia was recorded in 69.8% of cases using non-buffered articaine solution and 76.2% of cases using buffered articaine solution, with no significant difference between the formulations (P = 0.219). The mean time of anesthesia onset for the volunteers with successful anesthetic outcome in both formulations (n = 43) was 6.6 ± 1.6 min for the non-buffered articaine solution and 4.5 ± 1.6 min for the buffered solution, which differed significantly (P = 0.001). In the same volunteers, the mean duration of pulpal anesthesia was 28.4 ± 7.1 min for non-buffered articaine solution and 30.2 ± 8.5 min for buffered articaine solution, with no significant difference between the formulations (P = 0.231). Considering the pain of injection, regardless of the anesthetic success, the mean values of VAS were 11.3 ± 8.2 mm for the non-buffered articaine solution and 7.8 ±6.5 mm for the buffered articaine solution, which differed significantly (P = 0.001 < 0.05). Conclusion: According to the present study, 4% articaine with epinephrine can benefit from buffering and provide better anesthetic behavior, with improved onset and less pain during injection.

Keywords

References

  1. Brummett CM, Williams BA. Additives to local anesthetics for peripheral nerve blockade. Int Anesthesiol Clin 2011; 49: 104-16. https://doi.org/10.1097/AIA.0b013e31820e4a49
  2. Imran E, Moeen F, Abbas B, Yaqoob B, Wajahat M, Khan Q, et al. Comparative analysis of different local anesthetic solutions available in market: an in vitro and clinical study. Eur J Dent 2021; 15: 660-8. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1727553
  3. Guo J, Yin K, Roges R, Enciso R. Efficacy of sodium bicarbonate buffered versus non-buffered lidocaine with epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve block: a meta-analysis. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 2018; 18 :129-42. https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2018.18.3.129
  4. Meincken M, Norman C, Arevalo O, Saman DM, Bejarano T. Anesthesia onset time and injection pain between buffered and unbuffered lidocaine used as local anesthetic for dental care in children. Pediatr Dent 2019; 41: 354-7.
  5. Catchlove RF. The influence of CO 2 and pH on local anesthetic action. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1972; 181: 298-309.
  6. Shurtz R, Nusstein J, Reader A, Drum M, Fowler S, Beck M. Buffered 4% articaine as a primary buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. J Endod 2015; 41: 1403-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.05.005
  7. Isen DA. Articaine: pharmacology and clinical use of a recently approved local anesthetic. Dent Today 2000;19 :72-7.
  8. Almadhoon HW, Abuiriban RW, Almassri H. Efficacy of 4% articaine buccal infiltration versus inferior alveolar nerve block for mandibular molars with sympromatic irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2022; 22: 101712.
  9. Miglani S, Ansari I, Patro S, Mohanty A, Mansoori S, Ahuja B, et al. Efficacy of 4% articaine vs 2% lidocaine in mandibular and maxillary block and infiltration anaesthesia in patients with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ 2021; 9: e12214.
  10. Dhake P, Nagpal D, Chaudhari P, Lamba G, Hotwani K, Singh P. Buffered articaine: infiltration for primary molar extractions: a randomized controlled study. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 2022; 22: 387-94. https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2022.22.5.387
  11. Amorim KS, Fontes VTS, Gercina AC, Groppo FC, Souza LM. Buffered 2% articaine versus non-buffered 4% articaine in maxillary infiltration: randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2021; 25: 3527-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03674-x
  12. Goodchild JH, Donaldson M. Novel direct injection chairside buffering technique for local anesthetic use in dentistry. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2019; 40: e1-10.
  13. Goodchild JH, Donaldson M. Comparing the pH change of local anesthetic solutions using two chairside buffering techniques. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2016; 37: e6-12.
  14. Kakroudi SH, Mehta S, Millar BJ. Articaine hydrochloride: Is it the solution? Dent Update 2015; 42: 88-93. https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2015.42.1.88
  15. Schellenberg J, Drum M, Reader A, Nusstein J, Fowler S, Beck M. Effect of buffered 4% lidocaine on the success of the inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. J Endod 2015; 41: 791-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.02.022
  16. Saatchi M, Khademi A, Baghaei B, Noormohammadi H. Effect of sodium bicarbonate-buffered lidocaine on the success of inferior alveolar nerve block for teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized double-blind study. J Endod 2015; 41: 33-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.09.011
  17. Phero JA, Nelson B, Davis B, Dunlop N, Phillips C, Reside G, et al. Buffered versus non- buffered lidocaine with epinephrine for mandibular nerve block: clinical outcomes. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 75: 688-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2016.09.055
  18. Baker SD, Lee JY, White RP, Collins L, Bodnar W, Philips C, et al. Double-blind, randomized clinical trial comparing one percent buffered versus two percent unbuffered lidocaine injections in children. Pediatr Dent 2021; 43: 88-94.
  19. Warren VT, Fisher AG, Rivera EM, Saha PT, Turner B, Reside G, et al. Buffered 1% lidocaine with epinephrine is as effective as non-buffered 2% lidocaine with epinephrine for mandibular nerve block. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 75: 1363-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2016.12.045
  20. Afsal MM, Khatri A, Kalra N, Tyagi R, Khandelwal D. Pain perception and efficacy of local analgesia using 2% lignocaine, buffered lignocaine, and 4% articaine in pediatric dental procedures. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 2019; 19: 101-9. https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2019.19.2.101
  21. Malamed SF, Tavana S, Falkel M. Faster onset and more comfortable injection with alkalinized 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000. Compend Cont Educ Dent 2013; 34: 10-20.
  22. Kashyap VM, Desai R, Reddy PB, Menon S. Effect of alkalinisation of lignocaine for intraoral nerve block on pain during injection, and speed of onset of anaesthesia. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 49: e72-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.04.068
  23. Chopra R, Jindal G, Sachdev V, Sandhu M. Double-blind crossover study to compare pain experience during inferior alveolar nerve block administration using buffered two percent lidocaine in children. Pediatr Dent 2016; 38: 25-9.
  24. Hobeich P, Simon S, Schneiderman E, He J. A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of the injection pain and anesthetic onset of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine buffered with 5% and 10% sodium in maxillary infiltrations. J Endod 2013; 39: 597-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.01.008
  25. Whitcomb M, Drum M, Reader A, Nusstein J, Beck M. A prospective, randomized, double-blind study of the anesthetic efficacy of sodium bicarbonate buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve blocks. Anesth Prog 2010; 57: 59-66. https://doi.org/10.2344/0003-3006-57.2.59
  26. Aulestia-Viera PV, Braga MM, Borsatti MA. The effect of adjusting the pH of local anaesthetics in dentistry: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Endod J 2018; 51: 862-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12899
  27. Christoph RA, Buchanan L, Begalla K, Schwartz S. Pain reduction in local anesthetic administration through pH buffering. Ann Emerg Med 1988; 17: 117-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0644(88)80293-2
  28. Comerci AW, Maller SC, Townsend RD, Teepe JD, Vandewalle KS. Effect of a new local anesthetic buffering device on pain reduction during nerve block injections. Gen Dent 2015; 63: 74-8.
  29. Iwanaga J, Kamura Y, Tanaka T, Watanabe K, Kusukawa J, Oskouian RJ, Tubbs RS. A new space of the face: the bucco-mandibular space. Clin Anat 2017; 30: 958-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.22964
  30. Norton N. Netter's head and neck anatomy for dentistry. Philadelphia, Elsevier. 2007, p466.
  31. Aps J, Badr N. Narrative review: the evidence for neurotoxicity of dental local anesthetics. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 2020; 20: 63-72. https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2020.20.2.63
  32. Pogrel MA, Schmidt BL, Sambajon V, Jordan RC. Lingual nerve damage due to inferior alveolar nerve blocks: a possible explanation. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134: 195-9. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0133