Onset Of Pulpal Anesthesia Research Articles

The effect of single buccal infiltration anesthesia of 4% articaine with either 1:100,000 or 1:200,000 epinephrine on pulpal blood flow and anesthesia of maxillary first molars and second premolars in humans.

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with either 1:100,000 (EP100) or 1:200,000 (EP200) epinephrine on pulpal blood flow (PBF), pulpal anesthesia and soft tissue anesthesia of maxillary first molars and second premolars in human subjects. Fifteen healthy volunteers with intact maxillary first molars and second premolars received an infiltration of 4% articaine with either EP100 or EP200 at buccal aspect of maxillary first molars. The PBF, pulpal anesthesia and soft tissue anesthesia were assessed with a laser Doppler flowmeter (LDF), an electric pulp tester (EPT) and Aesthesiometer II, respectively. Articaine (4%) with either EP100 or EP200 produced PBF reduction in maxillary first molars (injected teeth) by 68.09 and 69.83%, and produced PBF reduction in second premolars (adjacent teeth) by 76.81 and 75.02%, respectively at 15min post injection. Duration of PBF returned to baseline was 159.00 ± 21.06 (EP100) and 159.00 ± 31.97 (EP200) min in the molars, and 161.00 ± 20.02 (EP100) and 159.00 ± 25.86 (EP200) min in the premolars. The onset of pulpal anesthesia was 2.80 ± 1.26 (EP100) and 3.07 ± 1.28 (EP200) min in the molars, and 2.13 ± 0.52 (EP100) and 2.40 ± 0.83 (EP200) min in the premolars; the duration of pulpal anesthesia was 74.53 ± 24.16 (EP100) and 76.27 ± 34.03 (EP200) min in the molars, and 82.53 ± 31.03 (EP100) and 75.60 ± 37.17 (EP200) min in the premolars. Buccal tissue anesthesia was found in both teeth (100%), but palatal anesthesia was achieved by 13.33% in the premolars and 6.67% in the molars for each solution. Single buccal infiltration to maxillary first molar produced PBF reduction and successful pulpal anesthesia, evaluated by EPT, in both first molar and second premolar. This anesthetic technique also produced high success of buccal tissue anesthesia, but demonstrated very low success for palatal tissue anesthesia. Single buccal infiltration to maxillary first molar is potent enough for pulpal and buccal tissue anesthesia, except palatal tissue anesthesia, in both first molar and second premolar.

Buffered 2% articaine versus non-buffered 4% articaine in maxillary infiltration: randomized clinical trial.

This randomized, triple-blind, crossover clinical trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy, onset, length of pulp and soft tissue anesthesia, and pain during injection of 2% buffered articaine and 4% non-buffered articaine solutions. Each volunteer received two maxillary supraperiosteal anesthesia infiltrations in canine area. The infiltrations were performed at two different sessions using a different local anesthetic solution for each session, and the anesthetic injection speed was always 1 mL/min. The assessment of the onset and length of pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia was performed with the pulp electrical test "pulp tester" and the esthesiometer kit, respectively. Volunteers marked pain during injection on a visual analog scale (VAS). The anesthetics solutions pH was evaluated through the pH meter equipment. There was no difference between the two anesthetic solutions (onset of soft tissue anesthesia, p = 0.5386; length of soft tissue anesthesia, p = 0.718; onset of pulpal anesthesia, p = 0.747; length of pulpal anesthesia, p = 0.375), except for pain during the injection which was lower when buffered 2% articaine was used (p = 0.001) and the pH. The pH analysis revealed that the solutions differed from one another (p < 0.01). The 2% buffered articaine solution provided the same anesthetic properties then 4% unbuffered articaine with a great reduction in pain during injection. The possibility of use 2% buffered articaine solution instead of 4% articaine maintaining the same anesthetic properties with a great reduction in pain during injection and half of the anesthetic salt concentration.

The effect of inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia of 4% articaine and epinephrine 1:100,000 on blood flow and anesthesia of human mandibular teeth

Background/purposeLocal anesthetics and anesthetic techniques affect the patterns of pulpal blood flow (PBF) and pulpal anesthesia in human teeth. This study aimed to determine PBF changes and pulpal anesthesia of intact mandibular first molars and canines after administration of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 using inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). Materials and methodsTen healthy subjects received IANB of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000. Laser Doppler flowmetry and electrical pulp testing were combined to assess PBF changes and pulpal anesthesia of intact mandibular first molars and canines. The data were analyzed using one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance and Student–Newman–Keuls test. ResultsIANB with 4% articaine and epinephrine 1:100,000 did not have any significant change in PBF for the first 20 min post injection in mandibular first molars, and for 45 min post injection in the canines (P > 0.05). However, a hyperemic response occurred during 25–60 min post injection in the molars, and between 60 and 75 min post injection in the canines (P < 0.05). Thereafter, the PBF in both teeth returned to the baseline. Onset of pulpal anesthesia was 8.60 ± 2.12 min in the molars, and 9 ± 1.94 min in the canines. Duration of pulpal anesthesia was 82.40 ± 41.56 min in the molars, and 84 ± 47.40 min in the canines. ConclusionIn case of successful IANB, 4% articaine and epinephrine 1:100,000 caused insignificant changes in PBF up to 30 min but a hyperemic response at later time points. Thereafter, the PBF returned to the baseline.

A Comparison of the Efficacy of 4% Articaine with 1:100,000 Epinephrine and 2% Lidocaine with 1:80,000 Epinephrine in Achieving Pulpal Anesthesia in Maxillary Teeth with Irreversible Pulpitis

IntroductionTo assess the efficacy of buccal infiltrations of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine in achieving anesthesia in maxillary teeth with irreversible pulpitis. MethodsThis randomized double-blind clinical trial included 100 patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis in maxillary teeth. Patients received 2.0 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine in the buccal sulcus adjacent to the tooth with pulpitis. Before and every 2 minutes up to a maximum of 10 minutes after injection, the response of the test tooth was assessed using an electronic pulp tester. Successful pulp anesthesia was considered to have occurred when no response was obtained to the maximum stimulation (80 reading) of the pulp tester during the test period, at which time treatment commenced. Treatment was regarded as being successfully completed when it was associated with no pain. The time to onset of successful pulp anesthesia was recorded for each test tooth. Injection discomfort was recorded on standard 100-mm visual analog scales (VASs). Data were analyzed by the Chi-square and Student t tests. ResultsFifty patients received articaine and 50 received lidocaine. Seventy-three of the 100 patients achieved pulpal anesthesia within 10 minutes of injection: 38 after articaine and 35 after lidocaine (P = .5). The onset of pulpal anesthesia after articaine and lidocaine buccal infiltrations was similar (mean and standard deviations: 4.9 ± 2.7 minutes vs 5.1 ± 2.4 minutes, respectively; t = 0.2; P = .82). Pain-free treatment was completed in 33 patients after articaine and 29 after lidocaine buccal infiltrations (P = .63). Although articaine buccal injection was significantly more comfortable than lidocaine buccal injection (t = 2.3, P = .026), both were associated with mild discomfort on VAS (means ± standard deviation: 10.8 mm ± 11.7 mm vs 17.5 mm ± 17.6 mm, respectively). ConclusionsThere was no significant difference in efficacy between 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine in achieving anesthesia in maxillary teeth with irreversible pulpitis after buccal infiltration.

A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Comparison of 2% Lidocaine With 1 : 100,000 Epinephrine, 4% Prilocaine With 1 : 200,000 Epinephrine, and 4% Prilocaine for Maxillary Infiltrations

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind crossover study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and 4% prilocaine in maxillary lateral incisors and first molars. Sixty subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, maxillary lateral incisor and first molar infiltrations of 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 1.8 mL of 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and 1.8 mL of 4% prilocaine, at 3 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. The teeth were pulp-tested in 3-minute cycles for a total of 60 minutes. Anesthetic success (ie, obtaining 2 consecutive 80 readings with the electric pulp tester) and onset of pulpal anesthesia were not significantly different between 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and 4% prilocaine for the lateral incisor and first molar. For both lateral incisor and first molar, 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine were equivalent for incidence of pulpal anesthesia. However, neither anesthetic agent provided an hour of pulpal anesthesia. For both lateral incisor and first molar, 4% prilocaine provided a significantly shorter duration of pulpal anesthesia compared with 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine.

A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Comparison of 2% Lidocaine With 1:100,000 and 1:50,000 Epinephrine and 3% Mepivacaine for Maxillary Infiltrations

Introduction The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind crossover study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 and 1:50,000 epinephrine and 3% mepivacaine in maxillary lateral incisors and first molars. Methods Sixty subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, maxillary lateral incisor and first molar infiltrations of 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 2% lidocaine with 1:50,000 epinephrine, and 3% mepivacaine at three separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. The teeth were pulp tested in 3-minute cycles for a total of 60 minutes. Results and Conclusions Anesthetic success and the onset of pulpal anesthesia were not significantly different between 2% lidocaine with either 1:100,000 or 1:50,000 epinephrine and 3% mepivacaine for the lateral incisor and first molar. Increasing the epinephrine concentration from 1:100,000 to 1:50,000 in a 2% lidocaine formulation significantly decreased pulpal anesthesia of short duration for the lateral incisor but not the first molar. For both the lateral incisor and first molar, 3% mepivacaine significantly increased pulpal anesthesia of short duration compared with 2% lidocaine with either 1:100,000 or 1:50,000 epinephrine.

Anesthetic Efficacy of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of 2% Lidocaine with 1:100,000 Epinephrine for Maxillary Infiltrations

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blinded study was to measure the degree of anesthesia obtained with 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in maxillary infiltrations. Ninety-six adult subjects randomly received infiltrations of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of the lidocaine solution at two separate appointments, in a crossover design. Thirty-two lateral incisors, 32 first premolars and 32 first molars were studied in this investigation. Anesthetic success (obtaining two consecutive 80 readings with the electric pulp tester) for the two volumes ranged from 97% to 100%. The onset of pulpal anesthesia was not statistically different between the two volumes. For both volumes, the lateral incisors had a higher percentage of anesthesia of short duration than the first premolar and first molar. The 3.6 mL volume provided a statistically longer duration of pulpal anesthesia for the lateral incisor, first premolar, and first molar.

An Evaluation of Buccal Infiltrations and Inferior Alveolar Nerve Blocks in Pulpal Anesthesia for Mandibular First Molars

We compared the anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANBs) with that of buccal infiltrations (BIs) in mandibular first molars. Using a crossover design, all subjects received a standard IANB or a BI of 1.7 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline (Septanest; Septodont, Saint-Maru-des-Fosses, France) on two appointments separated by at least 1 week. Pulpal anesthesia was determined by using an electric pulp tester. Electric pulp testing was repeated at 5, 8, 11, 15, 20, 25, and 30 minutes after the injections. Anesthesia was considered successful if the subject did not respond to the maximum output of the pulp tester at two or more consecutive time points. Fifty-four percent of the BI and 43% of the IANB were successful; the difference was not significant (p = 0.34). The onset of pulpal anesthesia was significantly faster with BI (p = 0.03). In conclusion, BI with 4% articaine for mandibular first molars can be a useful alternative for clinicians because compared with IANB it has a faster onset and a similar success rate.

A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Comparison of Bupivacaine and Lidocaine for Maxillary Infiltrations

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in maxillary lateral incisors and first molars. Sixty-five subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, two infiltrations at two separate appointments, in a crossover design. The injections consisted of maxillary lateral incisor and first molar infiltrations of 1.8 mL 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 1.8 mL 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. In maxillary lateral incisors, bupivacaine exhibited a significantly lower anesthetic success rate (obtaining two consecutive 80 readings with the pulp tester within 10 minutes) of 78% when compared with a 97% success rate with lidocaine. In maxillary first molars, bupivacaine's onset of pulpal anesthesia (7.7 minutes) was significantly slower than lidocaine (4.3 minutes). Bupivacaine had a lower success rate than lidocaine (64% versus 82%) but there was no significant difference between the two solutions. Neither solution provided pulpal anesthesia for 1 hour.