• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.179-186
• /
• 2020

This systematic review aims to determine if a single buccal infiltration (without palatal infiltration in the maxilla and Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in the mandible) with 4% articaine can induce adequate analgesia for the extraction of primary molars (Maxillary and Mandibular) in children. PubMed, Ovid SP, and Embase were searched for studies published between January 1990 and March 2020 with the relevant MeSH terms. Titles and abstracts were screened preliminarily, followed by the full-texts of the included studies. Five articles were included for this systematic review. The outcome investigated was "Procedural pain during the extraction of primary molars after injection with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine in comparison to single buccal infiltration, double infiltration (buccal and palatal/lingual), and inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% lignocaine." Of the five studies that evaluated subjective pain during extraction, two reported no significant difference between the articaine and lignocaine groups, and the remaining three reported lower subjective pain during extraction in the articaine group. Only two studies evaluated objective pain scores during extraction, and both studies reported lower pain scores in the articaine group. There is insufficient evidence to justify the statement that a single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine alone is sufficient for the extraction of primary molars. Further evidence is required to justify the claim that palatal infiltrations and IANB can be replaced with the use of 4% articaine single buccal infiltration for the extraction of primary molars in children.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.46 no.1
• /
• pp.9.1-9.9
• /
• 2021

Objectives: This randomized clinical trial aimed to assess the effectiveness of buccal infiltration with piroxicam on the anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with buccal infiltration in irreversible pulpitis, with pain assessed using the Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (HP-VAS). Materials and Methods: This study included 56 patients with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular molars, randomly distributed between 2 groups (n = 28). After evaluating the initial pain score with the HP-VAS, each patient received IANB followed by buccal infiltration of 2% lignocaine with adrenaline (1:80,000). Five minutes later, the patients in groups 1 and 2 were given buccal infiltration with 40 mg/2 mL of piroxicam or normal saline, respectively. An access opening procedure (AOP) was performed 15 minutes post-IANB once the individual showed signs of lip numbness as well as 2 negative responses to electric pulp testing. The HP-VAS was used to grade the patient's pain during caries removal (CR), AOP, and working length measurement (WLM). Successful anesthesia was identified either by the absence of pain or slight pain through CR, AOP, and WLM, with no requirement of a further anesthetic dose. A statistical analysis was done using the Shapiro-Wilk and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: The piroxicam group presented a significantly lower (p < 0.05) mean pain score than the saline group during AOP. Conclusions: Buccal infiltration with piroxicam enhanced the efficacy of anesthesia with IANB and buccal infiltration with lignocaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.46 no.4
• /
• pp.250-257
• /
• 2020

Objectives: Palatal infiltration is the most painful and uncomfortable anesthesia technique for maxillary impacted third molar surgery (MITMS). This approach could cause patients distress and aversion to dental treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of a buccal infiltration injection without a palatal injection in MITMS. Materials and Methods: This prospective research study was a crossover split mouth-randomized controlled trial. Twenty-eight healthy symmetrical bilateral MITMS patients (mean age, 23 years) were randomly assigned to two groups. Buccal infiltration injections without palatal injections were designated as the study group and the buccal with palatal infiltration cases were the control group, using 4% articaine and 1:100,000 epinephrine. The operation started after 10 minutes of infiltration. Pain assessment was done using a visual analogue scale and a numeric rating scale after each injection and extraction procedure. Similarly, the success rate, hemodynamic parameters, and additional requested local anesthetic were assessed. Results: The results showed that the pain associated with local anesthetic injections between both groups were significantly different. However, the success rates between the groups were not significantly different. Postoperative pain was not significant between both groups and a few patients requested an additional local anesthetic, but the results were not statistically significant. For hemodynamic parameters, there was a significant difference in systolic pressure during incision, bone removal, and tooth elevation. In comparison, during the incision stage there was a significant difference in diastolic pressure; however, other steps in the intervention were not significantly different between groups. Conclusion: We concluded that buccal infiltration injection without palatal injection can be an alternative technique instead of the conventional injection for MITMS.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.203-212
• /
• 2020

Background: This research evaluated the numbness produced by lignocaine at an equal or higher concentration than that of 4% articaine through a single point of injection for maxillary third molar surgery. This randomized double-blind study was conducted to compare the anesthetic efficiency of 4% lignocaine with that of 4% articaine in impacted maxillary third molar surgery using a single buccal infiltration alone. Methods: The study participants were 30 healthy patients requiring the bilateral surgical removal of symmetrically-positioned maxillary third molars. Using a split-mouth design, each patient randomly received buccal infiltration of 1.7 ml of 4% lignocaine and 1.7 ml of 4% articaine during two separate appointments. After 15 minutes of anesthetic injection, surgery was performed by the same surgeon using a consistent technique on both sides. Pinprick test pain scores of the buccal and palatal gingiva of the maxillary third molar after 10 minutes and 15 minutes latencies, pain scores during the surgery, the need for supplemental anesthesia, and patients' satisfaction with anesthetic efficiency were recorded. Surgery performed without supplemental anesthesia was categorized as successful. Results: The success rates of 4% lignocaine and 4% articaine (83.34% vs. 86.67%, P = 1.00) were not significantly different. Only 5 cases (4 cases in the articaine group and 1 case in the lignocaine group) reported mild pain and pressure sensation (NRS ≤ 1) on probing at the palatal side after 15 minutes of latency (P = 0.25). The pain scores of maxillary third molar surgery in the two groups were not significantly different (P > 0.05). Moreover, the statistical analysis confirmed the comparable patient satisfaction of two study groups (P = 0.284). Conclusion: This study provides evidence that single buccal infiltrations of 4% lignocaine and 4% articaine have comparable anesthetic efficacy and success rates for impacted maxillary third molar surgery. Both 4% lignocaine and 4% articaine can produce effective palatal anesthesia and pain control using buccal infiltration alone after 15 minutes of latency.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.233-240
• /
• 2020

Background: Palatal injection of local anesthetics is the most painful injection. To obviate the need for palatal injections, local anesthetic agents with diffusibility are being investigated. Hence the present study was designed to analyze the anesthetic efficacy of 2% lidocaine hydrochloride (HCl) with 1:100,000 adrenaline and 4% articaine hydrochloride (HCl) with 1:100,000 adrenaline using single buccal infiltration for the extraction of maxillary premolars. Methods: A prospective, double-blind, crossover, randomized clinical study was performed on 60 consecutive systemically healthy patients with an age range of 15-30 years, requiring extraction of asymptomatic bilateral maxillary premolars for orthodontic purposes. They received 1ml buccal infiltration of 4% articaine HCl with 1:100,000 adrenaline on one side and 2% lidocaine HCl with 1:100,000 adrenaline on the other side. The extraction procedure on either side was scheduled 14 days apart. Parameters assessed were the time of onset of anesthesia, intraoperative discomfort, hemodynamic parameters, and the duration of analgesia. Analysis of the data was done using the Mann-Whitney test, the Wilcoxon test, the Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA test, and the chi-square test. Statistical significance was established at P < 0.05. Results: Articaine showed a faster time of onset and longer duration of analgesia than lidocaine. However, the difference in the intraoperative discomfort and hemodynamic parameters was statistically insignificant. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, it can be concluded that the extraction of maxillary premolars can be performed with a single buccal infiltration of 2% lidocaine HCl with 1:100,000 adrenaline, which is one of the most commonly used local anesthetic agent.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.61-69
• /
• 2021

Background: Inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) using lidocaine 2% is commonly used for anesthetizing primary mandibular molars; however, this technique has the highest level of patient discomfort compared to other local anesthesia techniques. Therefore, alternative anesthesia techniques are necessary. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with IANB using 2% lidocaine, for the bilateral extraction of primary mandibular molars. Methods: The present study was conducted on 30 patients aged between 6 and 9 years, who required the extraction of bilateral primary mandibular molars. The patients were randomly divided into two groups as follows: In the first session, Group A received IANB with lidocaine 2% and group B received infiltration with articaine 4%. In the second session, another injection method was performed on the opposite side. The Wong-Baker Facial Pain scale (WBFPS), Face Leg Activity Cry, and Consolability (FLACC), and physiologic parameters were used to assess pain perception. Results: The independent t-test showed no statistically significant difference in blood pressure and heart rate before and after extraction (P > 0.05). The mean FLACC index in the lidocaine and articaine groups was 0.89 and 1.36, respectively; there was no statistically significant difference between them (P > 0.05). According to the results of the chi-square test, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups for WBFPS (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The articaine infiltration technique may be an alternative to the IANB for the extraction of primary mandibular molars.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.46 no.3
• /
• pp.41.1-41.23
• /
• 2021

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of various local anesthesia (LA) in vital asymptomatic teeth. Materials and Methods: Randomized controlled trials comparing pulpal anesthesia of various LA on vital asymptomatic teeth were included in this review. Searches were conducted in the Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar and 3 field-specific journals from inception to May 3, 2019. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool were done by 2 independent reviewers in duplicate. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed within the frequentist setting using STATA 15.0. The LA was ranked, and the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) line was plotted. The confidence of the NMA estimates was assessed using the CINeMA web application. Results: The literature search yielded 1,678 potentially eligible reports, but only 42 were included in this review. For maxillary buccal infiltration, articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 was more efficacious than lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000 (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-3.89). For mandibular buccal infiltration, articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 was more efficacious than various lidocaine solutions. The SUCRA ranking was highest for articaine 4% with epinephrine when used as maxillary and mandibular buccal infiltrations, and lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:80,000 when used as inferior alveolar nerve block. Inconsistency and imprecision were detected in some of the NMA estimates. Conclusions: Articaine 4% with epinephrine is superior when maxillary or mandibular infiltration is required in vital asymptomatic teeth.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.135-141
• /
• 2023

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.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.6
• /
• pp.387-395
• /
• 2020

Background: The anterior-middle superior alveolar (AMSA) anesthetic technique has been reported to be a less traumatic alternative to several conventional nerve blocks and local infiltration for anesthesia of the maxillary teeth, their periodontium, and the palate. However, its anatomic basis remains controversial. The present study aimed to determine if the pattern of cortical and cancellous bone density in the maxillary premolar region can provide a rationale for the success of the AMSA anesthetic technique. Method: Cone-beam computed tomography scans of 66 maxillary quadrants from 34 patients (16 men and 18 women) were evaluated using a volumetric imaging software for cortical and cancellous bone densities in three interdental regions between the canine and first molar. Bone density was measured in Hounsfield units (HU) separately for the buccal cortical, palatal cortical, buccal cancellous, and palatal cancellous bones. Mean HU values were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test and one-way ANOVA with post-hoc analysis. Results: Cancellous bone density was significantly lower (P ≤ 0.001) in the palatal half than in the buccal half across all three interdental regions. However, there was no significant difference (P = 0.106) between the buccal and palatal cortical bone densities at the site of AMSA injection. No significant difference was observed between the two genders for any of the evaluated parameters. Conclusions: The palatal half of the cancellous bone had a significantly lower density than the buccal half, which could be a reason for the effective diffusion of the anesthetic solution following a palatal injection during the AMSA anesthetic technique.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.4
• /
• pp.283-309
• /
• 2021

Achieving profound anesthesia in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis is a tedious task. This review aimed at evaluating the success of buccal/lingual infiltrations administered with a primary inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) injection or as a supplemental injection after the failure of the primary injection in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with irreversible pulpitis in human mandibular molars. The review question was "What will be the success of primary and supplemental infiltration injection in the endodontic treatment of patients with irreversible pulpitis in human mandibular molars?" We searched electronic databases, including Pubmed, Scopus, and Ebsco host and we did a comprehensive manual search. The review protocol was framed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. We included clinical studies that evaluated and compared the anesthetic outcomes of primary IANB with primary and/or supplementary infiltration injections. Standard evaluation of the included studies was performed and suitable data and inferences were assessed. Twenty-six studies were included, of which 13 were selected for the meta-analysis. In the forest plot representation of the studies evaluating infiltrations, the combined risk ratio (RR) was 1.88 (95% CI: 1.49, 2.37), in favor of the secondary infiltrations with a statistical heterogeneity of 77%. The forest plot analysis for studies comparing primary IANB + infiltration versus primary IANB alone showed a low heterogeneity (0%). The included studies had similar RRs and the combined RR was 1.84 (95% CI: 1.44, 2.34). These findings suggest that supplemental infiltrations given along with a primary IANB provide a better success rate. L'Abbe plots were generated to measure the statistical heterogeneity among the studies. Trial sequential analysis suggested that the number of patients included in the analysis was adequate. Based on the qualitative and quantitative analyses, we concluded that the infiltration technique, either as a primary injection or as a supplementary injection, given after the failure of primary IANB, increases the overall anesthetic efficacy.