• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.239-254
• /
• 2022

The high success rate of dental treatment is dependent on the cooperation of pediatric patients during procedures. Dental treatment often causes pain, particularly in children. The factors in providing treatment to pediatric patients include the characteristics and location of the tooth, profoundness of the anesthesia including the type of local anesthetic, and cooperation of the patient. Previous studies have examined several techniques to successfully achieve profound pulpal anesthesia in maxillary permanent teeth. The dentist should select the injection technique to be used based on patient needs. In children, either buccal with palatal injections or buccal with intra-septal injections may be used to anesthetize the permanent maxillary first molar. Buccal with palatal injections are commonly used prior to routine maxillary dental procedures. Currently, there are only a few studies on the employment of buccal with intra-septal injections to anesthetize permanent maxillary first molars in pediatric patients. This review will focus on efficacy of buccal with palatal versus buccal with intra-septal pulpal anesthesia of the permanent maxillary first molars in pediatric patients and aim to determine which technique should be used during routine dental procedures.

• 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.19 no.1
• /
• pp.45-54
• /
• 2019

Background: Profound anesthesia with adequate duration is required in periodontal flap surgery, which involves the manipulation of both hard and soft tissues. The anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) injection may be an alternative to multiple injections required for this purpose in the maxilla. The present study aimed to assess the effectiveness of AMSA injection using computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery (CCLAD) system to anesthetize buccal hard tissue (BHT), buccal soft tissue (BST), palatal hard tissue (PHT), and palatal soft tissue (PST) around the maxillary teeth. Methods: Thirty-five patients who were indicated for open flap debridement in a whole maxillary quadrant were given AMSA injection using the CCLAD. The effectiveness of anesthesia was evaluated using subjective and objective parameters around each tooth. Supraperiosteal infiltrations were administered to complete the surgery wherever the AMSA injection was ineffective. Results: The AMSA injection was more effective on the palatal tissues than on the buccal tissues, as 94.14% of PST and 87.89% of PHT sites were anesthetized compared to 49.22% and 43.75% of BHT and BST sites, respectively. There was no significant difference in the frequency of anesthesia around the anterior and posterior teeth. The PHT was significantly more anesthetized (P = 0.003) in males than in females. Conclusions: The AMSA injection using CCLAD is highly effective on palatal tissues and could be used as a first-line anesthesia for periodontal flap surgery. However, its effect on buccal tissues is less predictable, with supraperiosteal infiltration often required to supplement the AMSA injection.

• 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.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.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.22 no.5
• /
• pp.387-394
• /
• 2022

Background: Dental pain management is an important aspect of patient management in pediatric dentistry. Articaine is considered the most successful anesthetic agent for infiltration anesthesia. Buffered articaine has been observed to have faster onset and longer duration of action with less pain on injection. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare pain on injection, onset of action, and pain during extraction using buffered (using Sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO₃)) and non-buffered 4% articaine (with 1:100000 adrenaline) infiltrations for primary maxillary molar extractions in 4-10-year-old children. Methods: Seventy children who required extraction of maxillary primary molars were enrolled in this triple-blind randomized study. Children undergoing extraction were randomly divided into two groups, with 35 in each group. The study group was the buffered articaine group; the control group was the non-buffered articaine group. Buccal and palatal infiltrations were administered with either buffered or non-buffered articaine. Subjective evaluation was done for pain on injection, pain during extraction using Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBFPR) and onset of anesthesia in seconds. Pain on injection, pain during extraction were objectively evaluated using Sound Eye Motor (SEM) scale and onset of anesthesia was also evaluated objectively by pricking with sharp dental probe. Results: The outcome was, significantly less pain on injection and significantly faster onset of anesthesia with significantly less pain during extraction for both subjective and objective evaluations in the buffered articaine group. Subgroup analysis was also performed and it showed variable results, with only significant difference for WBFPR scores in age subgroup 4-7 years for palatal infiltration. Conclusion: Less pain on injection, faster onset of anesthesia, and less pain during extraction were observed when buffered articaine was used for maxillary primary molar extraction.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.39-47
• /
• 2022

Background: This was a randomized controlled clinical trial that aimed to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 2% lidocaine combined with different concentrations of epinephrine (plain, 1:200,000 and 1:80,000) during endodontic treatment of maxillary molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Methods: The trial included 144 adult patients who were randomly allocated to three treatment groups. All patients received buccal-plus-palatal infiltration. After 10 min, pulp sensibility testing was performed using an electric pulp test (EPT). If a tooth responded positively, anesthesia was considered to have failed. In the case of a negative EPT response, endodontic access was initiated under rubber dam isolation. The success of anesthesia was defined as having a pain score less than 55 on the Heft Parker visual analog scale (HP VAS), which was categorized as 'no pain' or 'faint/weak/mild' pain on the HP VAS. Baseline pre-injection and post-injection maximum heart rates were recorded. The Pearson chi-square test was used to analyze the anesthetic success rates at 5% significance. Results: Plain 2% lidocaine and 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 1:80,000 epinephrine had anesthetic success rates of 18.75%, 72.9%, and 82.3%, respectively. Statistical analysis indicated significant differences between the groups (P < 0.001, 𝛘² = 47.5, df = 2). The maximum heart rate increase was seen with 2% lidocaine solution with epinephrine. Conclusion: Adding epinephrine to 2% lidocaine significantly improves its anesthetic success rates during the root canal treatment of maxillary molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

• 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.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.49 no.6
• /
• pp.372-380
• /
• 2019

Objective: To determine the effects of a local injection of leukocyte-platelet-rich plasma (L-PRP) on orthodontic tooth movement in rabbits. Methods: Twenty-three male New Zealand white rabbits were included in a split-mouth design. Tooth movement with a 100-g nickel-titanium closed-coil spring was performed on the maxillary first premolars. L-PRP was injected submucosally at the buccal and lingual areas of the first premolar in one random side of the maxilla and the other side served as the control and received normal saline. The amount of tooth movement was assessed on three-dimensional digital models on days 0, 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28. Histological findings and osteoclast numbers were examined on day 0 as the baseline and on days 7, 14, and 28. Results: The L-PRP group showed significantly greater cumulative tooth movement at all observed periods. However, a significantly higher rate of tooth movement was observed only on days 0-7 and 7-14. The osteoclast numbers were significantly increased in the L-PRP group on days 7 and 14. Conclusions: Local injection of L-PRP resulted in a transient increase in the rate of tooth movement and higher osteoclast numbers.