Duration Of Soft Tissue Anesthesia Research Articles

Efficacy of 7.5% Sodium Bicarbonate Buffered 2% Lidocaine with 1:80,000 Epinephrine in Exodontia

Objectives: The present study examined the efficacy and acceptability of buffered lidocaine (7.5% sodium bicarbonate and 2% lignocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline) injection for pain management in dental extractions. Materials and Methods: A hundred patients aged between 20-60 years, according to the recommendations of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), who required teeth extraction either in maxillary or mandibular arch were considered. Routine exodontia was performed immediately after mixed sodium bicarbonate buffered lidocaine was administered. Simultaneously, the onset time of anesthesia was recorded using a stop clock, whereas pain perceived by the patient during injection and extraction was scored using a visual analog scale. The duration of anesthesia was assessed by the feeling of numbness and the first sign of pain. Results: One hundred patients were administered buffered lidocaine (pH 7.2). They had demonstrated a rapid onset (average of 41.20 sec) of anesthesia, a prolonged duration of anesthesia for soft tissues (average of 3.5 hrs), and low discomfort during injection (62%) and extraction (60%). Conclusion: Buffering lidocaine with sodium bicarbonate reduces the discomfort during the injection and hastens the onset of anesthesia for infiltrations and maxillary blocks when compared to mandibular block with an immersive action that prolongs the duration of soft tissue anesthesia up to 4-5 hrs. It is a simple, economical procedure that a dentist can efficiently perform before local anesthetic administration, making oral surgical operations more comfortable for patients.

Efficacy of intraseptal anesthesia obtained by computer-controlled articaine with epinephrine delivery in scaling and root planing.

The primary aim of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of the intraseptal anesthesia (ISA) obtained with three doses of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (4%Ar + Ep) for scaling and root planing (SRP), using a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system (CCLADS). The secondary aims were to compare the clinical anesthetic parameters in relation to different jaw regions and examine the possible influence of sex and smoking habits on them. SRP under ISA obtained with different doses (0.1ml, 0.2ml, and 0.3ml) of 4%Ar + Ep was performed in 360 patients. The success rate, onset, duration of soft tissue anesthesia, and the anesthetic field widths were recorded by pinprick testing. The anesthesia success was high (90-95%). The onset was immediate. The duration and anesthetic field widths showed a dose-related significance, however, without a consistent sex-related or smoking-related significance. The multiple logistic regression analysis revealed a twofold higher chance of anesthesia success by increasing the dose and increased bleeding on probing-related and female sex-reduced probability of anesthesia success. ISA obtained with 0.3ml of 4%Ar + Ep delivered by a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system provided a high anesthetic success and the adequate clinical anesthetic parameters for SRP in all regions of both jaws. ISA obtained with 4%Ar + Ep provides an effective anesthesia for SRP. The anesthetic success rate may be reduced in the presence of gingival inflammation and in females as well. The study was registered in a Clinical Trials database (NCT04392804, registration date May 9, 2020).

The Comparative Evaluation of the Anesthetic Efficacy of 4% Articaine With 1:100,000 Adrenaline and 0.75% Ropivacaine for Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in the Extraction of Impacted Lower Third Molar.

Introduction Postoperative pain management is a major concern in lower third molar surgery. Various local anesthetic agents are studied for the same. Articaine and ropivacaine are recently studied for pain control intra- and postoperatively in minor oral surgical procedure. However, there is sparse literature that compares thesetwo agents. Therefore, the present study was designed to compare 4% articaine with 1:100,000adrenaline and 0.75% ropivacainefor inferior alveolar nerve block in lower impacted third molarsurgery. Materials and method A prospective, randomized controlled, split-mouth, double-blind study was performed. A total of 60healthy patients requiring extraction of lower impacted third molar with similar difficulty index were included in the study. Patients were administered 4% articaine with 1:100,000adrenaline and 0.75% ropivacaine on either side by random allocation. The procedure was performed at an interval of 14 days. Parameters assessed were time of onset of anesthesia, profoundness of anesthesia, hemodynamic parameters (heart rate and blood pressure), duration of soft tissue anesthesia, duration of postoperative analgesia, and postoperative symptom severity (PoSSe) scale. Results The time of onset of articaine was faster (69.20 + 20.13 seconds) compared to ropivacaine (104.06 + 17.66 seconds). No significant difference was observed in hemodynamic parameters. There was significant difference in duration of soft tissue anesthesia, postoperative analgesia, and PoSSe scale between the two groups. Conclusion Within the limitations of the study,0.75% ropivacainewas effective in providing prolonged soft tissue anesthesia, postoperative analgesia, and better PoSSe scale with hemodynamic stability compared to 4% articaine.

Bupivacaine for Root Canal Treatment - Practitioner Behaviors and Patient Perspectives: Survey Studies.

Introduction and ObjectivesLocal anesthesia is essential in dentistry in providing intraoperative analgesia and anesthesia. However, knowledge related to its use for management of post-operative pain is limited. Perioperative pain management is especially important for root canal treatment (ie, endodontic therapy), performed by endodontists. In this study, we sought to better understand endodontists’ attitudes regarding the use of long-lasting anesthetic, namely 0.5% bupivacaine HCl with 1:200,000 epinephrine, for the management of post-endodontic pain. Additionally, we aimed to understand the perspectives of dental patients about receiving longer lasting anesthesia for endodontic therapy and to determine factors that affect their anesthetic preferences within the orofacial region.MethodsAn email invitation to participate in an anonymous online survey was sent to members of the American Association of Endodontists. Also, 82 patients attending an in-person visit to an endodontic clinic were recruited to the study.ResultsData from 474 endodontic practitioners and 82 patients included in analysis. Among practitioners, the majority reported to either never (33.31%) or rarely (34.84%) using bupivacaine. Most chose “I don’t think I need it” (47%) and “patient discomfort because of longer duration of soft tissue anesthesia” (30.81%) as reasons for not preferring the use of bupivacaine. Of the practitioners who reported at least rare use, most chose bupivacaine for post-operative pain management (78.02%). Conversely, 52% of patients reported that they were likely/most likely to request long-lasting anesthetics for post-operative pain control.ConclusionBupivacaine is rarely used as a post-operative pain management strategy for endodontic therapy. Specifically, bupivacaine is not preferred not because of adverse events, toxicity, or slow onset concerns, but rather, because of longer duration of soft tissue anesthesia. However, our data suggest that patients may be willing to receive long-lasting anesthesia. Further patient-centered research should investigate the use of long-lasting anesthetic agents for management of post-endodontic pain.

Can local anesthesia with ropivacaine provide postoperative analgesia in extraction of impacted mandibular third molars? A randomized clinical trial

The aim of this study was to compare the local anesthesia efficacy of ropivacaine 0.75% compared to lidocaine 2% with 1:100,000 epinephrine for postoperative analgesia following extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. In this randomized, double-blind crossover clinical trial, 30 participants underwent surgical removal of bilateral impacted mandibular third molars under local anesthesia using ropivacaine 0.75% or lidocaine 2% with 1:100,000 epinephrine. The pain was recorded on a visual analog scale at 4, 8, 12, 24, and 48 h postoperatively. The use of analgesics and the presence of adverse effects were recorded. The duration of soft tissue anesthesia in the ropivacaine group was significantly longer than that in the lidocaine group. The lidocaine group recorded significantly higher visual analog scale scores at all postoperative time intervals, except in the final 48-h period. Analgesic use was higher in the lidocaine group. Rescue medication was used by 2 patients in each group (6.7%). Significantly more postoperative bleeding was seen in the ropivacaine group. Ropivacaine 0.75% injection before the surgical procedure may be associated with preventive analgesia for extraction of impacted mandibular third molars.

Comparative evaluation of efficacy and latency of twin mix vs 2% lignocaine HCL with 1:80000 epinephrine in surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molar.

Introduction:A prospective randomized double-blind controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the latency and duration of pterygomandibular nerve block with a mixture of 1.8 ml 2% lignocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine and 1 ml of 4 mg dexamethasone and its impact on postoperative sequelae after surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars.Materials and Methods:This study was conducted in 40 subjects referred to the department of oral and maxillofacial surgery; they were divided into 20 subjects each in group A and B with the age range of 18–72 years planned for elective surgical removal of unilateral impacted mandibular third molar. Each patient was randomly selected to receive anesthesia using 1.8 ml 2% lignocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine in group A or 2.8 ml twin mix (1.8 ml 2% lignocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine + 1 ml 4 mg dexamethasone) in group B. After injection of the anesthetic solution, the time to anesthetic effect, duration of anesthesia from initial patient perception of the anesthetic effect to the time when the effect subsides, need to reanesthetize the surgical site were recorded, and 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) was used to subjectively assess the overall pain intensity while injecting the study drug, during surgery, and in the postoperative period.Results:Mean VAS value for pain on local anesthetic injection was less in twin-mix group. The time of onset of the local anesthetic was significantly less for the study group T, 51.35 ± 7.15 s when compared with patients in study group C (P less than 0.0001). The duration of soft tissue anesthesia was longer for all the patients in the study group T. On comparative evaluation between study group C and study group T, patients in the control group had more severe swelling and reduction in mouth opening in the postoperative period.Conclusion:The addition of dexamethasone to lignocaine and its administration as an intraspace injection significantly shortens the latency and prolongs the duration of the soft tissue anesthesia, with improved quality of life in the postoperative period after surgical extraction of mandibular third molars.

The anesthetic efficiency of retromolar infiltrations with two local anesthetic solutions of the same concentration in lower third molar surgery.

BackgroundMandibular third molar removal is the most common surgical procedure encountered in oral and maxillofacial clinics. It also presents the greatest challenges and controversies for surgeons when surgical removal is considered. Furthermore, diverse anesthesia results and success rates are achieved after using the same concentrations of different solutions or the same amounts of local anesthetics. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficiency of using double-cartridge (3.4 ml) 4% lidocaine (high concentration) and 4% articaine with a 1:100000 epinephrine infiltration in the retromolar region for impacted lower third molar surgery.MethodsThis double-blind study included 30 patients with symmetrically impacted lower third molars. The patients were randomly selected to receive 4% articaine on one side and 4% lidocaine on the other, as a local anesthetic for third molar surgery. The onset, duration of soft-tissue numbness, pulpal sensitivity, amount of additional local anesthetic needed, pain score during the surgical procedure, and duration of the operation were recorded.ResultsThe results of this research indicate that 86.7% of the operations in the 4% articaine group and 83.3% of those in the 4% lidocaine group were successful. Furthermore, the outcomes in both groups were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Numbness onset occurred faster in the articaine group than it did in the lidocaine group. However, the duration of soft-tissue anesthesia and pain scores recorded immediately postoperatively were similar.ConclusionIt is concluded that 4% lidocaine and 4% articaine had a similar infiltration efficacy in the retromolar region and both local anesthetics are adequate for impacted lower third molar surgery. There were no statistically significant differences between the two local anesthetics regarding pain control and the duration of soft-tissue numbness during the procedure.

Comparison of latency and efficacy of twin mix and modified twin mix in impacted mandibular third molar surgery – A Preliminary Randomized Triple Blind Split Mouth Clinical Study

IntroductionIntra-space drug administration have recently gained popularity in the clinical practice posing several advantages over the conventional routes of drug administration. A preliminary prospective randomized triple blind clinical study was conducted to compare the latency and duration of anesthesia with twin mix (1.8ml 2% lignocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 1ml/4mg dexamethasone) and modified twin mix (1.7ml of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 1ml/4mg dexamethasone) to two conventional local anesthesia solutions along with co-relation of clinical effects in the postoperative phase in patients undergoing extraction of impacted mandibular third molars in terms of patients comfort post-surgery. Materials and MethodsThe study was conducted among 20 patients with bilateral impacted mandibular third molars who were randomly allotted to two groups, Group A and B. Each patients in both the groups was allotted with study and control site. Among Group A, patients were further divided into Sub-group L (Control) and Sub-group TM (Twin Mix). Group B patients were divided as Sub-group A (Control) and sub-group MTM (Modified Twin Mix). Sub-group L patients received 1.8ml of 2% lignocaine with 1:200,000 adrenaline and sub-group TM received twin mix. Sub-group A received 1.7ml of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline and sub-group MTM received modified twin mix solution. All the procedure was performed by a single operator with a gap of 1 month between the two interventions among both the groups. Various subjective and objective parameters were measured pre-operatively and postoperatively to assess the latency and efficacy of various anesthesia solutions used in this study for third molar removal. ResultsMean (±SD) VAS scores for sting on injection and pain were found to be less in TM and MTM sub-group with a score of 2.3 (±0.768) and 2.7 (±0.065) respectively. The anesthetic latency was significantly less in sub-group TM, with a mean (±SD) of 52.4 (±28.3) seconds. Sub-groups A and MTM had longer latency of anesthesia when compared with L and TM sub-groups. The duration of soft tissue anesthesia was maximum in sub-group MTM as compared to the other sub-groups. Patients from control sub-groups among both the groups had increased swelling, post-surgical pain and trismus postoperatively. DiscussionIntra-space administration of twin mix and modified twin mix is clinically efficacious in impacted mandibular third molars surgery with better clinical outcomes postoperatively. We observed one significant difference between TM and MTM that the latter solution provided a prolonged duration of anesthesia increasing the patient's comfort postoperatively after surgical removal of mandibular third molars.

Is 0.75% ropivacaine more efficacious than 2% lignocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine for IANB in surgical extraction of impacted lower third molar?

We aim to compare and evaluate the anesthetic efficacy and safety of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) using 0.75% ropivacaine and 2% lignocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine in lower impacted third molar (LI3M) surgery. We designed a prospective randomized, double-blind, split-mouth study evaluating 60 systemically healthy patients with the presence of bilateral symmetrically oriented LI3M. The sides and sequence of drug administered were randomly allocated. The primary outcome variables analyzed were hemodynamic stability, profoundness of anesthesia, and duration of postoperative analgesia. Time of onset, duration of soft tissue anesthesia, patients requiring analgesics, and their quantity for five postoperative days were recorded. Early onset of anesthesia was seen in Lignocaine (68.6 ± 20.4s) compared with Ropivacaine (104.1 ± 17.7s) with significant differences (p= 0.001). Both the anesthetic solutions were found to be equipotent in providing profound intraoperative anesthesia. No significant difference emerged in perioperative hemodynamic stability. Ropivacaine exhibited statistically significant differences in the duration of soft tissue anesthesia (p= 0.001) and postoperative analgesia (p= 0.001). Patients requiring rescue pain medication and the number of analgesics consumed were greater on first and during five postoperative days in lignocaine when compared with that of ropivacaine with significant differences p< 0.001 and p< 0.001 respectively. The results suggest that 0.75% ropivacaine is effective in providing adequate anesthesia, prolonged postoperative analgesia, and better postoperative pain control with a safer cardiovascular profile in LI3M surgery. It can be an addition to the existing list of long-acting local anesthetics used for LI3M surgery.

Reversing the effects of 2% Lidocaine: A randomized controlled clinical trial

ObjectivesProlonged soft tissue anesthesia following a dental appointment is a complaint that is frequently reported by patients. Soft tissue anesthesia generally exceeds the duration of pulpal anesthesia by a few hours. This can lead to difficulties with smiling, drinking, speaking and lip/cheek biting following dental appointments. Phentolamine Mesylate (PM) is a pharmacological agent capable of reducing the duration of soft tissue anesthesia following dental treatments. Many clinical trials supporting its efficacy have used sham injections compared to injections with PM. The present study aims to evaluate the effect of PM on the duration of soft tissue anesthesia compared to a control injection of saline water. MethodsThis randomized controlled trial recruited 40 participants above 18 years of age. Following an inferior alveolar nerve block using 1.8 ml of Lidocaine 2%, 1:100 000 epinephrine, participants were randomized into one of 2 groups. The test group received an injection of 0.4 mg PM (OraVerse). Participants in the control group received an injection of sterile saline water. Participants were trained in self-assessing their anesthesia, which they did until return to normal sensation. ResultsThirty-six participants completed the study. PM significantly reduced the duration of soft tissue anesthesia in the lower lip (104 vs 170 min, p = .001), and tongue (83 vs 134 min, p = .004) compared to the control injection. No serious adverse events were encountered. The only adverse events observed were post-operative pain and discomfort. ConclusionsPhentolamine Mesylate hastens the return to normal soft tissue sensation and function by approximately one hour compared to a control injection of water. Clinical significancePhentolamine Mesylate can be considered a safe and effective way of reducing the duration of soft tissue anesthesia following a dental appointment.This controlled clinical trial is registered at the National Institutes of Health (ClinicalTrials.gov) #NCT02861378.

Double versus single cartridge of 4% articaine infiltration into the retro-molar area for lower third molar surgery.

BackgroundThere are no studies regarding 4% articaine infiltration injection into the retro-molar area for an impacted lower third molar (LITM) surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of infiltration using 1.7 ml (single cartridge: SC) of 4% articaine versus 3.4 ml (double cartridges: DC) of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in LITM surgery.MethodThis study involved 30 healthy patients with symmetrical LITM. The patients were assigned to receive either a DC or SC of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a local anesthetic for each operation. Onset, duration, profoundness, need for additional anesthetic administration, total volume of anesthetic used, vitality of the tooth, and pain score during operation were recorded.ResultsThe DC of 4 % articaine had a significantly higher success rate (83.3%) than did the SC (53.3%; P < 0.05). The duration of soft tissue anesthesia was longer in the DC group. The intra-operative pain was higher in the SC group with a significant (P < 0.05) requirement for a supplementary local anesthetic.ConclusionWe concluded that using DC for the infiltration injection had a higher success rate, longer duration of anesthesia, less intra-operative pain, and a lower amount of additional anesthesia than SC in the surgical removal of LITM. We recommend that a DC of 4% articaine and a 1:100,000 epinephrine infiltration in the retro-molar region can be an alternative anesthetic for LITM surgery.

Effects of Two Different Anesthetic Solutions on Injection Pain, Efficacy, and Duration of Soft-Tissue Anesthesia with Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block for Primary Molars

The purpose of the study was to compare the efficacy, injection pain, duration of soft tissue anesthesia, and postoperative complications of two different anesthetics (2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine and 3% plain mepivacaine) in pediatric patients in inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) administered by a computer-controlled delivery system (CCDS). The study was conducted as a randomized, controlled-crossover, double-blind clinical trial with 60 children requiring bilateral pulpotomy or extraction of primary mandibular molars. A CCDS was used to deliver 3% mepivacaine to 1 primary tooth and 2% lidocaine to the contralateral tooth with an IANB technique. Severity of pain and efficacy of anesthesia were evaluated using the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability Scale, and comfort and side effects were assessed using a questionnaire. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U, Wilcoxon t, and Fisher exact tests. Patients receiving 2% lidocaine experienced significantly less pain during injection than those receiving 3% mepivacaine, and no significant differences were found in the pain scores during treatments or in postoperative complications between the two anesthetics. The mean durations of anesthesia for 3% mepivacaine and 2% lidocaine were 139.68 minutes and 149.10 minutes, respectively. Plain mepivacaine and 2% lidocaine were similarly effective in pulpotomy and the extraction of primary mandibular molars. Although the use of 3% mepivacaine provided a shorter duration of anesthesia than 2% lidocaine, both solutions showed similar results in terms of postoperative complications.

Comparison of two epinephrine concentrations in an articaine solution for local anesthesia in children.

Painless dental treatment is of major interest in pediatric dentistry. Local anesthesia contains epinephrine, which prolongs soft tissue anesthesia.This, however, is often a source of iscomfort for children and is responsible for certain side effects (e.g., self-inflicted soft tissue lesions). The aim of this study was to investigate whether an epinephrine-reduced articaine solution could reduce the duration of soft tissue anesthesia and thereby reduce the risk of self-inflicted soft tissue lesions, while still providing an adequate anesthesia. In a non-interventional clinical study, routine dental treatment was performed on children and adolescents. An articaine 4% solution with an epinephrine-reduced solution (Ubistesin™ mite, 1:400,000) and a conventional epinephrine solution (Ubistesin™ forte, 1:100,000) were compared in terms of duration of soft tissue anesthesia. One hundred and fifty-eight patients (mite: 75, forte: 83) were treated (80% with infiltration anesthesia). In both groups, the average volume of the injection was comparable (mite: 1.2 ml, forte: 1.1 ml). One patient from each group showed unwanted side effects. In both groups, the local anesthesia was complete or sufficient (96%) to perform the planned treatment. The average treatment time was 24 minutes in the mite group and 28 minutes in the forte group. The difference in mean duration of soft tissue anesthesia was statistically significant (p = 0.001, mite: 2.1 h, forte: 2.8 h). Thanks to its high efficacy, tolerance, and reduced soft tissue anesthesia, the articaine 4% solution with the reduced epinephrine concentration (1:400,000) was considered a safe and suitable drug for routine treatments in pediatric dentistry.

Comparison of two epinephrine concentrations in an articaine solution for local anesthesia in children.

Painless dental treatment is of major interest in pediatric dentistry. Local anesthesia contains epinephrine, which prolongs soft tissue anesthesia.This, however, is often a source of iscomfort for children and is responsible for certain side effects (e.g., self-inflicted soft tissue lesions). The aim of this study was to investigate whether an epinephrine-reduced articaine solution could reduce the duration of soft tissue anesthesia and thereby reduce the risk of self-inflicted soft tissue lesions, while still providing an adequate anesthesia. In a non-interventional clinical study, routine dental treatment was performed on children and adolescents. An articaine 4% solution with an epinephrine-reduced solution (Ubistesin™ mite, 1:400,000) and a conventional epinephrine solution (Ubistesin™ forte, 1:100,000) were compared in terms of duration of soft tissue anesthesia. One hundred and fifty-eight patients (mite: 75, forte: 83) were treated (80% with infiltration anesthesia). In both groups, the average volume of the injection was comparable (mite: 1.2 ml, forte: 1.1 ml). One patient from each group showed unwanted side effects. In both groups, the local anesthesia was complete or sufficient (96%) to perform the planned treatment. The average treatment time was 24 minutes in the mite group and 28 minutes in the forte group. The difference in mean duration of soft tissue anesthesia was statistically significant (p = 0.001, mite: 2.1 h, forte: 2.8 h). Thanks to its high efficacy, tolerance, and reduced soft tissue anesthesia, the articaine 4% solution with the reduced epinephrine concentration (1:400,000) was considered a safe and suitable drug for routine treatments in pediatric dentistry.

The efficacy of an elevated concentration of lidocaine HCl in impacted lower third molar surgery.

BackgroundThere have been few studies on the effect of an elevated concentration of lidocaine hydrochloride in the surgical removal of an impacted lower third molar. This study aimed to examine the efficacy of 4% lidocaine along with 1:100,000 epinephrine compared to 2% lidocaine along with 1:100,000 epinephrine as inferior alveolar nerve block for the removal of an impacted lower third molar.MethodsThis single-blind study involved 31 healthy patients (mean age: 23 y; range: 19-33 y) with symmetrically impacted lower third molars as observed on panoramic radiographs. Volunteers required 2 surgical interventions by the same surgeon with a 3-week washout period. The volunteers were assigned either 4% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as local anesthetic during each operation.ResultsWe recorded the time of administration, need for additional anesthetic administration, total volume of anesthetic used. We found that the patient's preference for either of the 2 types of local anesthetic were significantly different (P < 0.05). However, the extent of pulpal anesthesia, surgical duration, and duration of soft tissue anesthesia were not significantly different.ConclusionsOur study suggested that inferior alveolar nerve block using 4% lidocaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a local anesthetic was clinically more effective than that using 2% lidocaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine; the surgical duration was not affected, and no clinically adverse effects were encountered.

Comparative Analysis of the Anesthetic Efficacy of 0.5 and 0.75% Ropivacaine for Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Surgical Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars.

Ropivacaine belongs to pipecoloxylidide group of local anesthetics. There are reports supporting the use of ropivacaine as a long acting local anesthetic in oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures, with variable data on the concentration that is clinically suitable. A prospective randomized double-blind study protocol was undertaken to assess the efficacy of 0.5 and 0.75% ropivacaine for inferior alveolar nerve block in surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. A total of 60 procedures were performed, of which thirty patients received 0.5% and thirty received 0.75% concentration of the study drug. All the patients in both the study groups reported subjective numbness of lip and tongue. The time of onset was longer for 0.5% ropivacaine when compared to 0.75% solution. 90% of the study patients in 0.5% ropivacaine group reported pain corresponding to VAS ≥3 during bone guttering and 93.3% patients reported pain corresponding to VAS >4 during tooth elevation. None of the patients in 0.75% ropivacaine group reported VAS >3 at any stage of the surgical procedure. The duration of soft tissue anesthesia recorded with 0.75% ropivacaine was average 287.57±42.0min. 0.75% ropivacaine was found suitable for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars.

Comparative split-mouth study of the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 0.5% bupivacaine in impacted mandibular third molar extraction

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of articaine at 4% (epinephrine 1:100,000) with bupivacaine at 0.5% (epinephrine 1:200,000) for surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. Study Design: This was a randomized, double blind, split-mouth, clinical trial. Thirty-six patients took part and underwent extraction of 72 lower third molars. The variables studied were: anesthetic latency time, intra-operative bleeding, anesthetic quality, hemodynamic changes during the surgical intervention, anesthetic duration in the soft tissues, post-operative analgesia and post-operative pain at 2, 6, 12 and 24 hours using a visual analogue scale, as well as any need for additional rescue medication. Results: Latency time was 2.0 minutes for articaine and 3.1 minutes for bupivacaine, with statistically significant difference (p<0.05). Bleeding was greater when bupivacaine was used (p<0.05) and anesthetic quality was greater with articaine (p<0.05). The duration of soft tissue anesthesia was longer with bupivacaine (p<0.05). Differences in post-operative analgesia, haemodynamic changes, post-operative pain and the quantity of rescue medication consumed were not statistically significant (p>0.05). Conclusions: Articaine showed greater clinical efficacy than bupivacaine, reducing latency time, bleeding, anesthetic duration in the soft tissues and achieving higher anesthetic quality, requiring less reinforcement during surgery than bupivacaine. Key words:Articaine, bupivacaine, anesthetic efficacy, impacted mandibular third molar.

A prospective randomized double-blind study to assess the latency and efficacy of Twin-mix and 2 % lignocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine in surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars: a pilot study

A prospective randomized double-blind study was conducted to assess the latency and duration of pterygomandibular nerve block with a mixture of 1.8 ml 2% lignocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 1 ml of 4 mg dexamethasone and its impact on postoperative sequelae of surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. The study was conducted as a prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial on 20 patients with bilateral impaction of mandibular third molars. A total of 40 interventions were included for the study, 20 with 2% lignocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine (study group C, control) and 20 with the twin-mix (study group T, twin-mix), with a gap of 1 month between two interventions in a single patient. After injection of the anesthetic solution, the time to anesthetic effect, duration of anesthesia, and the need to re-anesthetize the surgical site were recorded. A 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess the overall pain intensity while injecting the study drug, during surgery, and in the postoperative period. pH of the test anesthetic solutions was also determined using a pH meter. Twin-mix was found to be more basic than 2% lignocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine. Mean VAS value for the pain/sting on local anesthetic injection/block was less in study group T. Time of onset of the local anesthetic was significantly less for the study group T, 51 ± 17.5 s when compared with patients in study group C (P less than 0.0001). The duration of soft tissue anesthesia was longer for all the patients in the study group T. On comparative evaluation between study group C and study group T, patients in the control group had more sever swelling and reduction in mouth opening in the postoperative period. The addition of dexamethasone to lignocaine and its administration as an intra-space injection significantly shortens the latency and prolongs the duration of the soft tissue anesthesia, with improved quality of life in the postoperative period after surgical extraction of mandibular third molars.

Efficacy and safety of intraseptal and periodontal ligament anesthesia achieved by computer-controlled articaine + epinephrine delivery: a dose-finding study

The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the dose-dependent anesthetic efficacy of the intraseptal anesthesia (ISA) and periodontal ligament anesthesia (PLA) obtained with different volumes of 4 % articaine and 1:100,000 epinephrine (Ar + Ep) in human mandibular premolars, using a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system (CCLADS). The safety profile of Ar + Ep was also studied by investigating the stability of cardiovascular parameters. One hundred and eighty randomly selected healthy volunteers (ASA I) entered the single-blinded study to receive 16 mg + 4 μg, 24 mg + 6 μg, and 32 mg + 8 μg of Ar + Ep, obtained with different volumes (0.4, 0.6, and 0.8 ml, respectively), for the ISA and PLA. Success rate, onset, and duration of profound pulpal anesthesia were evaluated by the electrical pulp tester, while the width of the anesthetic field and duration of soft tissue anesthesia were recorded using the pinprick testing. A monitor was used for the measurement of cardiovascular parameters. A dose-dependent duration of pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia was obtained only by the ISA. Success rate, duration of both pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia, and its width were significantly better in the ISA compared with the PLA. No significant cardiovascular changes were seen in both groups. It can be suggested that 0.6 and 0.8 ml of 4 % Ar + 1:100,000 Ep, delivered by CCLADS, offer high success rate and effective clinical parameters of ISA as a primary anesthesia. It seems that dental procedures requiring profound pulpal, bone, and soft tissue anesthesia could be effectively and safely obtained by mentioned anesthetic protocol.

Comparison of 4% articaine with epinephrine (1:100,000) and without epinephrine in inferior alveolar block for tooth extraction: double-blind randomized clinical trial of anesthetic efficacy

The purpose of this clinical prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with epinephrine (1:100,000) and without epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia for extractions of mandibular teeth. Eighty-eight patients received intraoral inferior alveolar nerve blocks using 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (n = 41; group 1) or without epinephrine (n = 47; group 2) for extractions of mandibular teeth. The primary objectives were differences in onset as well as in length of soft tissue anesthesia. The amount of anesthetic solution, need of a second injection, pain while injecting, pain during treatment, postoperative pain, and possible complications were surveyed. In both groups, anesthesia was sufficient for dental extractions. In group 1, a significantly faster onset of the anesthetic effect (7.2 min vs. 9.2 min; P = .001) and a significantly longer duration of soft tissue anesthesia (3.8 h vs. 2.5 h; P < .0001) were seen. There was no significant difference in the amount of anesthetic solution needed, in the need for a second injection, in the injection pain, in pain during treatment, or in postoperative analgesia. In both groups, no complications were seen. To minimize the epinephrine-induced side effects, 4% articaine without epinephrine is a suitable anesthetic agent for dental extractions in the mandible after inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia. There could be less postoperative discomfort due to the shorter duration of anesthesia without increased postoperative pain.