Search

Background: To compare acceptance and preference of topical lidocaine gel anesthesia with articaine injection anesthesia in patients with moderate periodontitis undergoing scaling and root debridement. Methods: Ninety‐one patients completed this randomized multicenter split‐mouth controlled study and underwent two separate periodontal treatment sessions on different days, one with a topical intrapocket lidocaine gel application and the other with an articaine injection anesthesia in a different order depending on randomization. Parameters measured were the patients' preference for topical lidocaine gel anesthesia or injection anesthesia with articaine (primary efficacy criterion), their maximum and average pain, and their intensity of numbness as well as experience of side effects; the probing depth; and the dentists' preference and their evaluations of handling/application, onset and duration of anesthetic effect, and patient compliance. Results: After having experienced both alternatives, 58.3% of the patients preferred the topical lidocaine gel instillation into the periodontal pockets. The safety profile of the lidocaine gel differed positively from the safety profile of articaine injection in type and frequency of adverse drug reactions. The dentistsʼ acceptance and preference regarding either anesthetic method studied were balanced. Conclusions: Instillation of lidocaine gel into the periodontal pocket is a preferred alternative to injection anesthesia for most of the patients and an equivalent alternative for dentists in nonsurgical periodontal therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This double-blind, randomised clinical trial aimed to find out whether there is a difference in the prevalence of neurosensory disturbance (NSD) between patients who received 2% lidocaine and those who received 4% articaine during inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANBs). Patients who underwent third molar extraction were randomised into two groups. IANB was performed using 2% lidocaine in Group 1 and 4% articaine in Group 2. The occurrence of NSD was documented. Patients were visited within 48 hours and one week after the tooth was removed. The type of anaesthetic drug (4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine) was the study's predictive factor. A total of 2400 patients were studied in two groups (1200 in each group). The mean (range) age of the patients was 28.40 (18–44) years. Five patients (0.41%) in the lidocaine group and seven (0.58%) in the articaine group had NSD after injection (p = 0.77). The prevalence of NSD after IANB was no higher in the articaine group than in the lidocaine group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine via primary intraosseous (IO) injection with the QuickSleeper device vs inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for mandibular first molars diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP). Sixty-four patients with a first mandibular molar with SIP were randomly divided into 2 groups: IO (n = 32) and IANB (n = 32). Each received either an IO injection with the 5th generation QuickSleeper device or a conventional IANB with 1.7 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Success was defined as no/mild pain upon the access cavity preparation and initial filing. Injection pain, anesthetic onset, heart rate (HR) change, HR recovery time, and duration of anesthesia were also recorded and analyzed. The success rates were 40.6% for IANB and 81.2% for IO (P <.001). IO exhibited a significantly lower injection pain (P =.027), a shorter onset of action (P <.001), a greater heart rate increase (P <.001), a faster heart rate recovery time (P <.001), and a shorter duration of action (P <.001) vs IANB. Primary IO anesthesia using the fifth generation of the QuickSleeper device was more successful than IANB when using 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine to anesthetize mandibular first molars with SIP. The QuickSleeper device appeared to be a viable alternative to IANB for mandibular anesthesia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Local anaesthetics with amide bases are generally thought to be safe to use. However, there is little research on its safety in diabetic individuals. The current study aimed to assess two widely used amide-based local anaesthetics, articaine and mepivacaine, in the context of healthy and diabetic rats to determine their impact and safety. A total of 30 male rats divided into two groups (healthy and diabetic groups) were used for this study. The rats were injected with local anaesthetic agents (articaine or mepivacaine). The rats' biochemical parameters were compared in order to assess the impact of various medications. The study's findings showed that, in comparison to the effects of articaine, mepivacaine considerably raised the levels of blood sugar (BS), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine transaminase (ALT), and amylase in healthy rats. In diabetic rats, mepivacaine significantly increased BS, AST, ALT and amylase levels compared with articaine (p<0.001). In contrast, the increase in this group was higher than in healthy rats. However, the gammaglutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) level showed non-significant differences compared to the control group in both groups. Articaine induced the least change in biochemical parameter levels in healthy and diabetic rats compared to mepivacaine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The benefits of topical pharyngeal anesthesia for gastroscopy remain under debate. Articaine, a local anesthetic with fast onset and offset of action as well as low systemic toxicity, could be a promising choice for topical anesthesia. The objective of this study was to assess whether topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine is beneficial in sedated gastroscopy. This randomized double-blinded cross-over study included nine volunteers who underwent two gastroscopies under conscious sedation. One was performed with topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine and the other with placebo. Hemodynamic parameters including autonomic nervous system state were recorded prior to and during the endoscopic procedure. The endoscopist and the volunteer assessed the endoscopy after the examination. Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine resulted in less discomfort during esophageal intubation and higher patient satisfaction with the procedure. Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine did not increase satisfaction or facilitate the procedure as rated by the endoscopist. There were no clinically relevant differences in hemodynamic parameters. The use of articaine for topical pharyngeal anesthesia results in less intubation-related discomfort and better satisfaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The safety and efficacy of a novel topical ocular anesthetic (AG-920 sterile ophthalmic solution, 8%) was previously evaluated in adults. For both clinical and regulatory purposes, this new agent was evaluated in children. Methods: This was a Phase 3, randomized, active-controlled, single-masked, parallel-group design study in healthy pediatric subjects performed at a private practice retina clinic in the United States. The safety and anesthetic efficacy of AG-920 was compared with proparacaine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.5% in 60 children undergoing ophthalmic examinations. The primary efficacy endpoint was whether the investigator was able to perform the eye examination. Results: In all subjects in each treatment group, the investigator was able to perform the eye examination without additional local anesthetic. There were no adverse events reported in this study. In both the study eye and fellow eye, there were no notable changes after dosing, and both treatment groups were similar. All external eye exams in all subjects in both treatment groups were normal. Conclusions: In this pediatric population aged 7 months to >11 years, AG-920 was therapeutically equivalent to marketed proparacaine with respect to having an ophthalmic examination performed without needing additional local anesthetic. Further, AG-920 was well tolerated, and there were no clinically significant safety findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine, 0.5% bupivacaine and 0.5% ropivacaine (with 1:200,000 adrenaline) during surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars. Materials and methods: The study included 75 patients randomly divided into three equal groups of 25 patients each. The study variables were: onset of anesthetic action, duration of surgery and anesthesia and postoperative analgesia. A visual analog scale was used to assess pain at different time intervals. Statistical analysis revealed insignificant difference among groups in terms of volume of anesthetic solution used, quality of anesthesia, surgical difficulty and duration of surgery. Results: The mean onset time was significantly (P < 0.001) shorter for articaine (1.14 min) than ropivacaine (2.18 min) and bupivacaine (2.33 min). However, the duration of anesthesia as well as analgesia was significantly (P < 0.001) longer for bupivacaine (483.6 min and 464 min) and ropivacaine (426.6 min and 459 min) as compared to articaine (232.8 min and 191.4 min), respectively. Also, on comparing three groups pain scores at 6th postoperative hour were significant (P < 0.01). Conclusion: Ropivacaine and bupivacaine can be safely used in patients where longer duration of surgery is anticipated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Herein, the molecular structures of amide ↔ imide tautomers of articaine (ART) were computationally investigated at the DFT/B3LYP/6–311++G (d,p) methodology. Experimental FT-IR and UV-Vis characterisation results of ART were compared with the theoretical results of amide (ART-A) and imide (ART-I) forms. Thermodynamic parameters computed for each phase revealed that the amide tautomer of ART was preferred with energy values in the range of 11.9–13.8 kcal/mol. The modification in surface properties as a function of prototropic tautomerism in the ART molecule was studied by electrostatic surface properties (ESP) analysis. Frontier molecular orbital (FMO), natural bond orbital (NBO), and nonlinear optical (NLO) analyses were performed. It is revealed that energy gap values of the ART-I (4.670–4.738 eV) for each phase are slightly higher than those of the corresponding phases in the ART-A (4.515–4.586 eV). Therefore, it can be concluded that the imide form exhibits lower chemical reactivity compared to the amide form. Regarding NLO characteristics, dipole moment (μtot), mean polarisability (αtot), and mean first-order hyperpolarisability (βtot) values of tautomers have been reported. It was determined that the βtot values computed for ART-A (0.653 × 10−30 esu) and ART-I (0.710 × 10−30 esu) were approximately twice the value of the standard urea. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Nervous patients often postpone dental visits until they are in severe pain, exacerbating anxiety. Buccal patches provide a noninvasive method of delivering drugs between the upper gum and cheek, offering local and systemic effects. Prior research has demonstrated the effectiveness, safety, and reliability of topical lidocaine or articaine patches for oral anesthesia. Consequently, this study aimed to develop a three-layered buccal drug delivery system for topical anesthetics. Methods: The first step was preparing and optimizing lidocaine-loaded three-layer patches using Design-expert software. The effects of ethylcellulose, Eudragit, and carbopol concentrations were investigated on patch characteristics, including mucoadhesion, Young's modulus, and Elongation-at-break. Subsequently, patches were fabricated according to the optimized formulation determined by the software, and their efficacy was studied in a randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Participants received either lidocaine or articaine-loaded compared with placebo in a split-mouth study. They evaluated their pain levels using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and the onset and duration of action were recorded for each treatment. Results: According to the results, increasing ethyl cellulose and Eudragit concentrations improved mucoadhesion force (p

Objectives: To evaluate the benefits of submucosal administration of a dexamethasone and articaine mixture on postoperative pain after mandibular third molar extraction. Method and materials: This was a double-blind randomized controlled pilot trial of consecutive patients requiring surgical removal of mandibular third molars. Immediately post extraction, the surgeon administered a submucosal injection. The surgeon was masked to the content of the injection, which contained either a mixture of 10 mg dexamethasone and 68 mg articaine ("study group") or the same volume of saline only ("control group"). Pain severity was assessed by questionnaire (postoperative symptom severity [PoSSe] scale) 7 days after the procedure. Results: Sixty subjects were enrolled. Patients in the study group had significantly lower PoSSe pain intensity scores than subjects in the control group (P = .004). The combined postoperative PoSSe pain score was significantly lower in the study group than in the control group (P = .016). There was no significant difference in pain duration between the two groups (P = .237). Conclusion: Submucosal injection of dexamethasone/articaine solution after surgical extraction of mandibular third molars is effective in reducing pain intensity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objective This trial aimed to study the efficacy of articaine in pain management during endodontic procedures in pediatric patients. Methods Ninety-eight children who received endodontic painless treatment were collected and randomly divided into the control group and observation group, with 49 cases in each group. The control group received infiltration anesthesia with lidocaine, and the observation group received infiltration anesthesia with articaine. Anesthesia effect, anesthesia onset time, sensory recovery time, duration of anesthesia, pain intensity, blood pressure, heart rate, and adverse reactions were compared. Results The effective rate of anesthesia in the observation group was higher than that in the control group. The anesthesia onset time and sensory recovery time were shorter, the duration of anesthesia was longer, and the VAS score and facial expression score were lower in the observation group than in the control group. The heart rate of the observation group was lower, and diastolic blood pressure was higher than those of the control group. The total incidence of adverse reactions in the observation group was lower than that in the control group. Conclusion In the treatment of dental pulp diseases in children, the use of articaine can achieve better anesthesia effect and rapid onset of anesthesia and has less impact on the patient’s blood pressure and heart rate, but it also can relieve pain and has good safety after the use of medication. It is worthy of clinical application.

Background: Intraligamentary anesthesia (ILA) injection using a single-tooth anesthesia (STA) system has been used as a supplementary technique for pulpal anesthesia in cases of irreversible pulpitis. Aims and Objective: The current clinical trial was undertaken to assess and compare the effectiveness of the conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) and the ILA technique utilizing the STA system for endodontic management of mandibular molars presenting symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Materials and Methods: Patients diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis inmandibular molar were allocated into two groups: Group I IANB (n=30) and Group II- STA system (n=30). The onset of anesthesia was evaluated using the electric pulp test, whereas for pain perception the Heft-Parker Visual Analog Scale score was recorded before, during, and after anesthesia. Post-anesthetic pain was recorded at 3 h, 24 h, and 1 week. The collected data was evaluated for effectiveness pain perception, and acceptability of the anesthetic technique, using appropriate statistical tests. Results: The mean time of onset for the Group II STA system (2.93±1.80) was significantly higher (P=0.0001) than Group I IANB (1.40±0.86). Pain at the site of injection was insignificant (P>0.05) between both groups. The severity of pain during the root canal procedure was significantly different (P

Objective: This trial aimed to study the efficacy of articaine in pain management during endodontic procedures in pediatric patients. Methods: Ninety-eight children who received endodontic painless treatment were collected and randomly divided into the control group and observation group, with 49 cases in each group. The control group received infiltration anesthesia with lidocaine, and the observation group received infiltration anesthesia with articaine. Anesthesia effect, anesthesia onset time, sensory recovery time, duration of anesthesia, pain intensity, blood pressure, heart rate, and adverse reactions were compared. Results: The effective rate of anesthesia in the observation group was higher than that in the control group. The anesthesia onset time and sensory recovery time were shorter, the duration of anesthesia was longer, and the VAS score and facial expression score were lower in the observation group than in the control group. The heart rate of the observation group was lower, and diastolic blood pressure was higher than those of the control group. The total incidence of adverse reactions in the observation group was lower than that in the control group. Conclusion: In the treatment of dental pulp diseases in children, the use of articaine can achieve better anesthesia effect and rapid onset of anesthesia and has less impact on the patient's blood pressure and heart rate, but it also can relieve pain and has good safety after the use of medication. It is worthy of clinical application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Intraligamentary anesthesia (ILA) injection using a single-tooth anesthesia (STA) system has been used as a supplementary technique for pulpal anesthesia in cases of irreversible pulpitis. Aims and Objective: The current clinical trial was undertaken to assess and compare the effectiveness of the conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) and the ILA technique utilizing the STA system for endodontic management of mandibular molars presenting symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Materials and Methods: Patients diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis inmandibular molar were allocated into two groups: Group I IANB (n=30) and Group II- STA system (n=30). The onset of anesthesia was evaluated using the electric pulp test, whereas for pain perception the Heft-Parker Visual Analog Scale score was recorded before, during, and after anesthesia. Post-anesthetic pain was recorded at 3 h, 24 h, and 1 week. The collected data was evaluated for effectiveness pain perception, and acceptability of the anesthetic technique, using appropriate statistical tests. Results: The mean time of onset for the Group II STA system (2.93±1.80) was significantly higher (P=0.0001) than Group I IANB (1.40±0.86). Pain at the site of injection was insignificant (P>0.05) between both groups. The severity of pain during the root canal procedure was significantly different (P<0.0001) in both cohorts. For both groups, the patient's acceptance of the anesthetic procedure was statistically insignificant (P=0.21). Conclusions: The STA system reported similar effectiveness in terms of effectiveness, pain perception, and acceptability of anesthetic technique when compared to IANB. Hence, the primary anesthetic treatment for conducting endodontic procedures on molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis appears to be the utilization of the ILA-employing STA system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous studies on intraosseous (IO) anesthesia as a primary injection have shown high success rates. The TuttleNumbNow (TNN; Orem, UT) is a new primary IO injection technique that has not been scientifically evaluated. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective randomized, crossover study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of the TNN IO technique using the Septoject Evolution needle (Septodont, Saint-Maur-des-Fosses, France) compared with buccal infiltration for pulpal anesthesia in mandibular first molars. One hundred four healthy subjects were randomly assigned to 2 treatment groups separated by at least 2 weeks. One set of injections consisted of buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar using 1.8 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine followed by a mock TNN injection distal to the mandibular first molar. The other set of injections was a mock buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar followed by a TNN injection of 1.8 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine distal to the mandibular first molar. Statistical analyses were performed. For the mandibular first molar, which had a 42% anesthetic success rate (highest 80 reading) with buccal infiltration compared with 49% with the TNN, no statistically significant difference in success was observed (P =.2115). The TNN technique has been advocated as an IO injection. However, the inability to deliver anesthetic solution to the cancellous bone resulted in an anesthetic success rate of 49%. The success was statistically similar to a buccal infiltration (42%) and would not provide adequate pulpal anesthesia as a primary injection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the anesthetic efficacy of articaine with the needle-free/Comfort-in™ method compared to the conventional needle method. To assess pain during anesthesia application, onset of anesthesia and patient`s self-reported quality of life-related to oral health after the dental emergency appointment. Materials and methods: This parallel, randomized clinical trial was conducted by a single operator/dentist in the state of Maranhao, northeast of Brazil. Included participants were adult dental patients with one molar (maxillary) or premolar (maxillary or mandibular) tooth diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. The primary outcome was the anesthetic efficacy, measured using a combination of electrical and cold pulp tests (cold + EPT) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes were pain during anesthesia application, onset of anesthesia, and patient`s quality-of-life (measured with the OHIP-14). Results: 62 patients were randomized in the anesthesia needle-free group and Comfort-in group (34.26 ± 10.786 × 33.29 ± 8.399 years old, respectively). The group of patients in the Comfort-in group had 71.0% success. Patients from the Comfort-in group reported statistically lower pain during the anesthesia application than patients from the conventional group (2.13 ± 2.172 × 6.03 ± 3.146 NRS scores, respectively) as well as immediately after the anesthetic procedure. Patients self-reported negative impact in quality of life was similar between groups before (p > 0.05) and after (p > 0.05) the dental emergency. Conclusions: Comfort-in™ had similar efficacy to the conventional needle method. Clinical relevance: This trial showed that it is possible to anesthetize patients with tooth pulpits without using needles to provide comfort mainly to anxious patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The absolute necessity of a palatal injection for the extraction of primary maxillary molars has never been explored, despite the fact that it is widely known that children do not tolerate local anesthetic injections into the palatal tissue well. The aim of this study was to compare separately the perception of pain in the absence of palatal injection after anesthesia and maxillary primary molar tooth extraction using different anesthetic solutions and different post-anesthetic waiting times. Materials and methods: A single-blinded randomized controlled study was conducted in 78 participants (26 patients with palatal anesthesia (the control groups), and 26 patients with 5 min and 26 patients with 8 min post-anesthetic waiting time without palatal anesthesia (the study groups)). Subjective experiences of pain were evaluated separately after anesthesia and tooth extraction using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBS). Results: In terms of VAS scores obtained following administration of anesthesia, there was a statistically significant difference between the groups (p<0.05). VAS pain scores were reported to be lower in the groups without palatal anesthesia than in the groups with palatal anesthesia. No statistically significant difference was observed in VAS and Wong-Baker scores after tooth extraction between the groups with and without palatal anesthesia (P>0.05). Conclusions: While the pain reported following administration of anesthesia was found to be higher in the groups receiving palatal anesthesia, no difference was found between the groups in the pain reported after tooth extraction. Clinical relevance: Extraction of maxillary primary molars is possible without palatal injection by injecting 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine into the buccal vestibule of the tooth with a waiting time of 5 or 8 min. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The inability in achieving complete pulpal anesthesia with standard buccal infiltration especially in cases with SIP used for maxillary teeth. The study aimed to compare the anesthetic efficacy of buccal and buccal plus palatal infiltration technique using 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine in permanent maxillary first molars with the diagnosis of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP). One hundred and twenty-three patients with clinical diagnosis of SIP, aged 18–50 years were randomly allocated to three treatment groups (N = 41). Group 1(BIL): Buccal infiltration technique using 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline. Group 2(BPIL): combination of buccal plus palatal infiltration using 2% Lidocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline. Group 3(BIA): Buccal infiltration using 4% articaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline. Pain intensity of patients were recorded before and after the administration of local anesthesia during endodontic procedure that is during caries removal, access preparation and pulp removal using Heft-Parker Visual Analog Scale (HP-VAS). Success was defined by "no pain (0 mm)" or "mild pain (0–54 mm)" during endodontic procedure. The anesthetic efficacy rates were analyzed using chi-square tests, age differences using one-way ANOVA. The final analysis included total of 117 patients. Higher success was observed in group II (85%) in comparison to group I (69%) and group III (74%), but the difference was statistically nonsignificant (p > 0.05). Our results demonstrated a nonsignificant difference between genders in all three groups (p > 0.05). The use of buccal plus palatal infiltration and 4% articaine can provide effective anesthesia as standard buccal infiltration and 2% lidocaine for patients with SIP in maxillary first molars. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although there are conflicting data, several authors have proposed that articaine's molecular properties suggest improved perfusion capabilities over other amide anesthetics. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, crossover study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of palatal soft-tissue anesthesia following a buccal infiltration of 1.8 and 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. One hundred eighteen adults received 1.8 or 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a buccal infiltration of the maxillary first molar at 2 separate appointments. Palatal soft-tissue anesthesia was evaluated with a dental explorer. Anesthetic success was defined as the absence of pain with an explorer stick. For the subjects who achieved palatal anesthesia, mapping was conducted over 70 minutes, and the overall area of palatal anesthesia was calculated. The data were analyzed using chi-square tests. The highest percentage of palatal anesthetic success was 20% for the 1.8-mL volume and 32% for the 3.6-mL volume both at 30 minutes. A statistically significant difference between the 1.8- and 3.6-mL volumes was seen at 40 minutes. There was high variability in area measurements for subjects who achieved palatal anesthesia. The highest area measurements were 92 mm2 for the 1.8-mL volume at 20 minutes and 113 mm2 for the 3.6-mL volume at 10 minutes. Because of the low success rates (20%–32%) and the high variability of the area anesthetized for the subjects who achieved palatal anesthesia, the clinical efficacy of 1.8 or 3.6 mL of articaine via buccal infiltration for palatal anesthesia is of questionable value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study was conducted to explore the preference and experience of paediatric dentists based in Switzerland regarding the use of articaine and other local and topical anaesthesia. Methods: An 18-question survey was developed, piloted, and distributed to the members of the Swiss association of paediatric dentistry (n = 460). The following information were collected: most used local anaesthetic in different age groups, time needed to inject a full ampule, frequency of observed local and systemic side effects, application of topical anaesthetic prior to injection, time waited between application and the injection, and perceived effectiveness of topical anaesthetic. The dentists' responses were analysed with logistic regressions reporting odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) at 5%. Results: The response rate was 37% (n = 168) out of the 460 questionnaires sent, with the responders being predominantly female (67%) and 47-year-old on average. More than 80% of the dentists used articaine in all age groups. 45% of responders took longer than 60 s to inject a full ampule. Local and systemic side-effects were observed by 82% and 28% of respondents respectively, although the nature and the significance of those were not detailed due to the anonymous nature of the questionnaire. Significantly less local adverse effects were seen for older children (p = 0.04) and among dentists with more years of experience (p = 0.01). Most responders applied topical anaesthetic and half of them waited longer than 60 s before injection. Conclusions: Articaine is a widely used local anaesthetic by the studied group of Swiss paediatric dentists regardless of patient's age. The use of topical anaesthetic before injection is a common practice with good perceived effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundTo investigate the comparative effects of local anesthesia using lidocaine with adrenaline vs. articaine with adrenaline in endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (EN-DCR).MethodsThis retrospective study included a total of 180 patients. These patients were categorized into two groups: the lidocaine group, which received 2% lidocaine (1:100,000 adrenaline), and the articaine group, which received 4% articaine (1:100,000 adrenaline) for local anesthesia. The study compared anesthesia efficacy, intraoperative pain levels, intraoperative bleeding, as well as differences in heart rate and blood pressure between the two groups.ResultsThe articaine group demonstrated a significantly lower visual analog scale (VAS) pain score when compared to the lidocaine group, measuring at 4.4 ± 0.6 cm vs. 5.0 ± 1.0 cm, respectively (P < 0.0001). Additionally, the articaine group exhibited a higher anesthesia efficacy compared to the lidocaine group (89.0% vs. 76.6%, p = 0.0487). Notably, the articaine group experienced less nasal mucosal bleeding during the surgery in contrast to the lidocaine group (p = 0.004). However, there were no statistically significant differences in changes in blood pressure and heart rate between the two groups (p > 0.05).ConclusionThis study demonstrated that 4% articaine (1:100,000 adrenaline) has superior clinical effectiveness in comparison to 2% lidocaine (1:100,000 adrenaline) in EN-DCR.

This systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of local anesthetic administration into temporomandibular joint cavities in relieving pain and increasing mandibular mobility. Randomized controlled trials were included with no limitation on report publication dates. Final searches were performed on 15 October 2023, using engines provided by the US National Library, Bielefeld University, and Elsevier Publishing House. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Articular pain and mandible abduction values and their mean differences were summarized in tables and graphs. Eight studies on a total of 252 patients evaluating intra-articular administration of articaine, bupivacaine, lidocaine, and mepivacaine were included in the systematic review. None of the eligible studies presented a high risk of bias in any of the assessed domains. An analgesic effect of intra-articular bupivacaine was observed for up to 24 h. In the long-term follow-up, there were no statistically significant changes in quantified pain compared to both the baseline value and the placebo group, regardless of the anesthetic used (articaine, bupivacaine, and lidocaine). There is no scientific evidence on the effect of intra-articular administration of local anesthesia on the range of motion of the mandible. Therefore, in the current state of knowledge, the administration of local anesthetics into the temporomandibular joint cavities can only be considered as a short-term pain relief measure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate a modified two-step buccal infiltration (MBI) of 1.7 mL 4% articaine as primary or supplemental anesthesia in mandibular first and second molars diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP). Materials and methods: One hundred and eight patients with SIP were randomly assigned to one of three groups (n = 36). They were given an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) of 2% lidocaine with 1:80.000 epinephrine or a primary MBI of 4% articaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine in the IANB and MBI groups, respectively. Patients in the IANB + MBI group received an IANB followed by an MBI. Pain levels during the injection, access cavity preparation, and initial filing were recorded on the Heft-Parker visual analog scale (HP-VAS). No or mild pain (HP-VAS ≤ 54) upon access cavity preparation and initial filing was considered a success. Chi-square and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to analyze the data. Results: MBI (77.8%) and IANB + MBI (94.4%) had both significantly higher success rates than IANB (50.0%) (P <.001). However, when the Bonferroni adjustment was applied, there was no statistically significant difference between the MBI and IANB + MBI techniques (P =.041 >.017). MBI was associated with significantly less injection pain than IANB (P <.001). Conclusions: Both primary and supplemental MBI with 4% articaine were superior to IANB with 2% lidocaine in mandibular first and second molars diagnosed with SIP. Further research may be needed to confirm the findings of this study. Clinical relevance. The findings of this study suggest that supplemental or primary MBI can be a clinically viable alternative to IANB, which has a relatively low success rate when managing mandibular molars diagnosed with SIP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Farmacia is the property of Societatea de Stiinte Farmaceutice Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

A combination labial infiltration (1.8 mL) plus lingual infiltration (1.8 mL) of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in the mandibular lateral incisor was found superior to a labial infiltration of 1.8 mL of the same solution. However, it is not known whether the volume or the location had the greatest effect. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective, randomized crossover study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of a labial infiltration of a 3.6 mL volume of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine compared with labial infiltration (1.8 mL) plus lingual infiltration (1.8 mL) of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in the mandibular lateral incisor. One hundred subjects randomly received 2 sets of injections, using 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, consisting of labial and lingual infiltrations of 1.8 mL (3.6 mL total) and 2 labial infiltrations of 1.8 mL (3.6 mL total) of the mandibular lateral incisor in 2 separate appointments. Electric pulp testing was used to determine anesthetic success (highest 80/80 reading). The data were analyzed statistically. The labial and lingual combination exhibited a significantly higher anesthetic success rate (97%) when compared with the 2 labial infiltrations (74%) and had significantly higher 80/80s readings from 1 minute to 58 minutes. Within the limitations of this clinical study, a combination labial plus lingual infiltration using a 3.6-mL volume of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine significantly increased pulpal anesthetic success for the mandibular lateral incisor when compared with a labial infiltration using a 3.6-mL volume of articaine. Therefore, location of the infiltrations was more important than volume. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Articaine has been used as a local anesthetic for dental procedures, but studies about articaine used as a local anesthetic for regional block after thoracic surgeries are limited.Aim of the Study: Our study compares the postoperative analgesic efficacy of articaine 2% and bupivacaine 0.25% through erector spinae block for after thoracic surgeries.Patients and Methods: All patients were divided into two groups. Group I [20 patients] [erector spinae block with bupivacine 0.25%] was performed before extubation with an injection of 30 ml of 0.25% bupivacine. Group II [20 patients] [erector spinae block with articaine 2%] was performed before extubation with an injection of 30 ml of articaine 2%.Results: As regard the visual analogue scale at 8 h and 12 h, postoperatively, there was significant variance among the 2 groups [p value=0.045, p value=0.002]. Also, with regard to first-rescue analgesia and the total dose of morphine, there was significant variance among the 2 groups [p value=0.006, p value=0.02].Conclusion: Articaine is a reliable local anesthetic agent when compared to bupivacaine for regional block after thoracic surgeries.

Abstract Objective To investigate the effectiveness of a single labial infiltration of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine for the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth without an additional lingual injection. Patients and methods A prospective, randomized-controlled, split-mouth clinical study was implemented. Healthy adult patients seeking bilateral extraction of mandibular anterior teeth were included in this study. Teeth extractions were randomly assigned to two equal groups, where one mandibular anterior tooth was extracted using a solitary labial infiltration of either 4% articaine (the study group) or 2% lidocaine (the control group). After 14 days, the other mandibular anterior tooth was extracted using the other local anesthetic agent. The selection of the anesthetic agent injected in the first session was done in a randomized fashion. After 5 min of local anesthetic injection, the tooth was extracted, and each patient was asked to record the intensity of the extraction pain using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Results Thirty-one patients were included in the study. The efficacy of a single labial injection for mandibular anterior teeth extraction was established by the fact that none of the patients in the study or control group required re-administration of local anesthesia. The mean VAS for pain control during tooth extraction was 1.16 ± 0.93 for the articaine group and 1.71 ± 0.90 for the lidocaine group. The pain score showed a statistically significant decrease in the articaine group compared to that in the lidocaine group (P = 0.017). Conclusion Although the anesthetic effects of only buccal infiltration of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine for extraction of mandibular anterior teeth were comparable, the use of 4% articaine would have more effective and predictable outcomes. ClinicalTrials.org (ID: NCT05223075) 3/2/2022.

Objectives: This study was designed as a prospective randomized single-blind clinical trial to compare the anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB), IANB plus buccal infiltration, and IANB plus lingual infiltration of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis. Method and materials: Sixty healthy volunteers who had a first or second mandibular molar diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis participated in the present study. This study was composed of three arms for the first molar and three arms for the second molar. Subjects in test arm A received two IANB injections (3.6 mL). Subjects in test arm B received 1.8 mL IANB injection plus 1.8 mL buccal infiltration. Subjects in test arm C received 1.8 mL IANB injection plus 1.8 mL lingual infiltration. Articaine (4%) with 1:100,000 epinephrine was used for all injections. The subject's pain during access preparation and pulp extirpation was recorded on the Heft-Parker visual analog scale. Success was defined as "none" or "mild" pain during treatment. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare pain categories in three groups of interventions for each mandibular molar. Results: IANB with a supplemented buccal infiltration provided more success than IANB alone or IANB plus lingual infiltration, in first molars (P = .019). There were no significant differences between the three injection techniques in second molars (P = .795). Conclusions: Adding a supplemental buccal infiltration to a standard IANB was more successful in providing pain-free treatment for patients experiencing irreversible pulpitis in mandibular first molars. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare and evaluate the efficacy, hemodynamic changes, and postoperative complications of 4% articaine using buccal infiltration and 2% lidocaine using inferior alveolar nerve block in mandibular primary molars of children aged 6 to 8 years. Method and materials: 100 participants were randomly distributed to receive either 4% articaine using infiltration anesthesia or 2% lidocaine using inferior alveolar nerve block on each side of the mandibular arch, in two different appointments, after a 1-week interval. The pain perception was evaluated using visual analog scale (VAS) and Wong-Baker Faces pain rating scale (WBFPRS). In both the appointments, the efficacy and onset of anesthesia were evaluated using an electric pulp tester. Hemodynamic parameters, which included pulse rate and oxygen saturation levels, were evaluated using a pulse oximeter. Postoperative complications were evaluated at 24-hour follow-up. Results: Pain score recorded with block was more painful compared to infiltration (P < .05). Anesthetic success was observed with both the local anesthetic agents, with no significant differences (P > .05). Shorter onset of action was observed with articaine (P < .05). Statistically significant differences between groups were noted with regard to heart rate (P < .05). Oxygen saturation levels did not show significant differences (P > .05). When postoperative complications were evaluated with either 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine, very few adverse effects were recorded (P > .05). Conclusion: Buccal infiltration using 4% articaine has the potential to replace 2% lidocaine using inferior alveolar nerve block in children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The current study compares articaine 4% with lidocaine 2% in terms of injection pain and effectiveness of anesthesia when treating permanent mandibular first molars (PMFMs) affected by molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH). In addition to comparing the complications of local anesthesia for both solutions. Methods: The sample included 20 children. Each child was randomly assigned to either articaine 4% or lidocaine 2% in their first session with the other solution being used at the subsequent session. Injection pain and the effectiveness of anesthesia were assessed using the Wong-Baker Faces® Pain Rating Scale and the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) scale. Parents were asked to report any complications of local anesthesia. The Wilcoxon-matched pairs signed-rank test was used to analyze the data. Results: Patients experienced greater pain when receiving articaine 4% injections according to both scales, differences were statistically significant when using the Wong-Baker Faces® Pain Rating scale (p < 0.05). Whereas, the FLACC scale did not show such differences (P > 0.05). Although there were no significant differences between the two solutions regarding the effectiveness of local anesthesia according to both scales (P > 0.05), articaine 4% was clinically found to be more effective than lidocaine 2%. No complications of local anesthesia were reported. Conclusions: Articaine 4% injection was more painful than lidocaine 2%. However, both solutions were effective in anesthetizing PMFMs affected by MIH and without anesthetic complications in the studied sample. Trial registration: Clinical trial, NCT05200884, (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05200884). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although most of the metabolism of local anesthetics (LAs) takes place in the liver, no study has investigated the effect of these anesthetics on the kidney function of single-kidney humans or animals. The present study was conducted to examine the effect of LAs on renal function in single-kidney rats. Materials and Methods: The present experimental animal study with two control groups was done in an animal laboratory. Forty-two rats were randomly assigned to seven groups of six rats, including two control groups and five experimental groups. The experimental groups underwent intraperitoneal anesthesia with 2% lidocaine, 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine, 4% articaine, 3% prilocaine with 0.03 IU Felypressin, and 3% mepivacaine, respectively. Unilateral nephrectomy was done. After 24 h, the rats' blood urea nitrogen (BUN), serum creatinine (Cr), and blood specific gravity (BSG) were measured. A standard dose of anesthetics was injected into the peritoneum for 4 days afterward. Then, these indices were measured again 24 h after the last injection. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS (version 21.0). One-way analysis of variance, Tukey's honestly significant difference post hoc, and paired t-tests were used for statistical analysis. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The results indicated significant differences among groups in the rats' BUN and serum Cr 24 h after nephrectomy (P < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences in BUN, BSG, and Cr among groups after the interventions. Conclusion: LAs did not affect renal function in single-kidney rats. Therefore, dentists can use the anesthetics in single-kidney people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Lidocaine Hydrochloride has been the standard choice for local anesthesia in dentistry and Articaine's unique structure and growing popularity make it a viable alternative. Due to contradictory results in prior research and a scarcity of trials conducted in the Pakistani population, this study aims to compare the anesthetic efficacy of Lidocaine with Articaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Materials and Methods: This double-blinded, randomized controlled trial included 152 patients who were selected by consecutive non-probability sampling. The participants included patients who presented with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth (molars and premolars) and depicted normal apical tissue radiographically. The patients were equally and randomly divided into two groups. The control group received 2% Lidocaine Hydrochloride injections, and the experiment group received 4% Articaine Hydrochloride injections. Participants scored their pain on the HP-VAS both before and after the administration of anesthesia. A value of 54 mm or less on the scale indicated effective anesthesia. The data obtained were analyzed using SPSS. Chi-square test was applied to analyze data for statistical significance. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the efficacy of the two anesthetic agents. During access cavity preparation, Lidocaine demonstrated a success rate of 93%, whereas Articaine exhibited a slightly higher success rate of 97%. During initial instrumentation, the success rates for Lidocaine and Articaine were 72% and 71%, respectively. This suggests that both Lidocaine and Articaine were effective in achieving anesthesia during the dental procedure in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, with Articaine showing a slightly better success rate, although the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions: The anesthetic efficacy of Articaine is similar to that of lidocaine in subjects with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Hence, Articaine can serve as an alternative to Lidocaine for local anesthesia administration in dentistry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine as supplementary buccal infiltration after failed inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Methods: MESH terms and specific keywords were used to search Scopus, EBSCOhost, Cochrane Library, and PubMed. Randomized clinical trials were among the included articles that compared the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine or 2% lignocaine as supplementary buccal infiltration following a failed IANB in patients with chronic irreversible pulpitis. Results: Five of the 871 studies that were reviewed were given full-text reading considerations, and three studies were subjected to qualitative analysis after meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In 234 patients altogether, patients anesthetized with 4% articaine buccal infiltration had a success rate of 61%–83.3% in the 118 patients in the 4% articaine BI group and 116 patients in the 2% lidocaine BI group. Conclusion: Supplemental buccal infiltration with 4% articaine in permanent mandibular molars was associated with greater anesthetic efficacy than the 2% lignocaine in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis after unsuccessful IANB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) is considered the cornerstone in achieving anesthesia for mandibular molars. However, failure of routine lignocaine IANB to achieve profound anesthesia of the pulp has been reported in patients with molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH). Articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 has proven to provide total pain relief during most dental procedures. Aims: This study aimed to assess and compare the pain perception level in children using Visual Analog Scale(VAS) during root canal treatment after administering 4% articaine buccal infiltration (BI), 4% articaine IANB, and 2% lignocaine IANB. Subjects and Methods: Twenty‑seven children aged 8–12 years, requiring root canal treatment of mandibular first permanent molars with MIH were randomly allocated into three groups ‑ 4% articaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) BI, 4% articaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) IANB, and 2% lignocaine IANB. The efficacy of the anesthetic was determined by rating the pain perception of the child using a VAS. Statistical Analysis Used: The scores marked by the children on the VAS were recorded and were statistically analyzed. Data were entered into Microsoft excel data sheet and were analyzed using SPSS for Windows version 17.0. Results: Patients anesthetized with 4% articaine IANB presented lesser pain scores compared to IANB with 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine BI on access opening and instrumentation of the root canals. Conclusion: 4% articaine IANB has better anesthetic efficacy than 4% articaine BI and 2% lignocaine IANB in anesthetising mandibular first permanent molars with MIH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this prospective, randomized crossover study was to compare the peak incidence of success, onset, and incidence over time of pulpal anesthesia in maxillary first molars following a buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL or 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100 000 epinephrine. A total of 118 adults received 1.8 mL or 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100 000 epinephrine via buccal infiltration of the maxillary first molar at 2 separate appointments. Electric pulp testing (EPT) of the maxillary first molar was performed over 68 minutes. There was no significant difference in the peak incidence of anesthetic success (85% and 92%, respectively) in the maxillary first molar between 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL. The difference in onset times (4.5 min for 1.8 mL vs 4.4 min for 3.6 mL) was not statistically significant. However, the 3.6-mL volume did produce a significantly higher incidence of pulpal anesthesia from minutes 48 to 68 compared with the 1.8-mL volume. There was no significant difference in peak incidence or onset of pulpal anesthesia in the maxillary first molar between 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of articaine with epinephrine. The incidence of pulpal anesthesia was significantly higher with 3.6 mL of articaine at 48 minutes and beyond, but neither volume provided complete pulpal anesthesia for all subjects that lasted at least 60 minutes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of a single labial infiltration of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine for the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth without an additional lingual injection. Patients and methods: A prospective, randomized-controlled, split-mouth clinical study was implemented. Healthy adult patients seeking bilateral extraction of mandibular anterior teeth were included in this study. Teeth extractions were randomly assigned to two equal groups, where one mandibular anterior tooth was extracted using a solitary labial infiltration of either 4% articaine (the study group) or 2% lidocaine (the control group). After 14 days, the other mandibular anterior tooth was extracted using the other local anesthetic agent. The selection of the anesthetic agent injected in the first session was done in a randomized fashion. After 5 min of local anesthetic injection, the tooth was extracted, and each patient was asked to record the intensity of the extraction pain using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Results: Thirty-one patients were included in the study. The efficacy of a single labial injection for mandibular anterior teeth extraction was established by the fact that none of the patients in the study or control group required re-administration of local anesthesia. The mean VAS for pain control during tooth extraction was 1.16 ± 0.93 for the articaine group and 1.71 ± 0.90 for the lidocaine group. The pain score showed a statistically significant decrease in the articaine group compared to that in the lidocaine group (P = 0.017). Conclusion: Although the anesthetic effects of only buccal infiltration of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine for extraction of mandibular anterior teeth were comparable, the use of 4% articaine would have more effective and predictable outcomes. ClinicalTrials.org: (ID: NCT05223075) 3/2/2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL (one cartridge) and 3.6 mL (two cartridges) buccal infiltration and buccal plus palatal infiltration of 4% articaine in maxillary first molar teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Materials and methods: This randomized single-blind clinical trial was conducted on 45 patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis of maxillary first molars (Trial Registration No: IRCT2015011020238N2_2015). The patients were randomly divided into three groups (n = 15) for buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL articaine plus 1:100,000 epinephrine (group 1), buccal infiltration of 3.6 mL articaine (group 2), and buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL articaine plus palatal infiltration of 0.5 mL articaine (group 3). The pain intensity was measured by the Heft-Parker visual analog scale (VAS) during injection and during access cavity preparation. No pain or mild pain during treatment was considered as successful anesthesia. Data were analyzed by the Tukey's post hoc test. Results: The three groups had a significant difference in frequency of the perceived pain during injection (P = 0.01). A higher volume of 4% articaine and injection of articaine in both buccal and palatal sides provided a significantly higher anesthesia success rate (P = 0.049 and P < 0.01, respectively). The highest success rate was recorded in group 3 (93.33%) followed by group 2 (80%) and then group 1 (53.33%). Conclusions: Increasing the administered volume of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and addition of palatal infiltration to buccal infiltration of articaine can significantly increase the success of anesthesia in maxillary first molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Clinical relevance: Achieving deep anesthesia in teeth with irreversible pulpitis is a critical parameter in management of patients who are in urgent need of root canal treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of articaine local infiltration with lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for restorative treatment of primary mandibular molars (PMMs). Methods: In this double-blind, parallel-design, randomized, controlled, clinical trial, participants were enrolled according to specified inclusion criteria ( four to 10 years of age, need of PMM restorations, Frankel four behavior) and randomly assigned into either an articaine or lidocaine group. One investigator administrated all local anesthesia (LA). Nineteen trained and calibrated examiners, blinded to LA type, evaluated participants’ reactions during LA administration and treatment using Modified Behavioral Pain Scale (MBPS). Participants rated their experiences using Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale (WBFS). The subjects’ blood pressure and pulse were recorded throughout procedures. Statistical analysis employed Mann Whitney-U test, repeated measures analysis of variance (P<0.05), and Cohen’s kappa. Results: A total of 110 participants (n equals 55 per group; mean age equals 6.42 years; 60 percent males) were enrolled. The mean MBPS rating during LA administration was higher for lidocaine IANB (3.89) compared to articaine infiltration (2.24; P<0.001). The mean MBPS rating throughout treatment was higher for the lidocaine group (2.51) compared to articaine group (1.69; P=0.012). The lidocaine group had a mean WBFS score of 1.64, while for the articaine group WBFS was 0.872 (P=0.089). All physiological measurements were within normal limits with no difference between groups. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that local infiltration with articaine was less distressing upon administration and may be considered safe and effective alternative to lidocaine IANB for restorative treatment in PMMs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Irreversible pulpitis is an extremely painful dental pathology. Its emergency treatment, pulpotomy, should include the use of a pulp dressing in the pulp chamber until the final treatment. Various antalgic products have been suggested as efficient medications to relieve the patient's pain and are commonly used, but data for scientific validation are scarce. Objective: We evaluated the efficacy of articaine or eugenol in the diminution of pain after pulpotomy. Design: We included 100 patients with irreversible pulpitis and evaluated their initial pain levels. Pain was measured using a 0–10 numeric rating scale. After treatment through pulpotomy, we randomized them into two groups using either articaine or eugenol as a pulp dressing and evaluated their pain level at 1, 3 and 7 days. Results: Initial pain levels were severe (7.53). The use of painkillers was not associated with lower levels of pain. Both treatments showed great efficiency on day 1, with stronger efficiency of eugenol than articaine, showing a decrease of 6.24 versus 4.89 (p = 0.025). Both treatments were efficient, whatever the age or sex of the patient, the initial pain level, and the causal tooth. Conclusion: Pulpotomy is an efficient way to relieve pain, using either articaine or eugenol. When choosing a pulp dressing, eugenol should be the first choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Acta Stomatologica Naissi is the property of Clinic of Stomatology Nis and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: We wanted to develop a new topical ocular anesthetic with good bioavailability in anterior segment tissues. Given concerns about contamination and sterility in multi-dose products, we selected a unit-dose, nonpreserved presentation of AG-920 (articaine ophthalmic solution) in blow-fill-seal containers (similar to currently marketed pharmacological therapies for dry eye disease). Methods: Consistent with US Food and Drug Administration guidance, two pivotal, Phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked, parallel design studies conducted at two US private practices in 240 healthy subjects. A single dose of AG-920 or identical looking placebo into one (study) eye (2 drops 30 s apart). Subjects underwent a conjunctival pinch procedure and assessment of the pain associated with the pinch. The main outcome measure was the proportion of subjects with rating of "No pain at 5 minutes". Results: AG-920 provided a rapid onset of local anesthesia (less than one minute) with clinically and statistically significantly greater effect in AG-920 (68% and 83%) than placebo (3% and 18% for Study 1 and Study 2, respectively, P< 0.0001). The most frequent adverse event was instillation site pain (27% vs 3%) followed by conjunctival hyperemia (probably related to the pinch, 9% vs 10%) in the AG-920 and placebo groups, respectively. Conclusion: AG-920 was found to be have a rapid onset and useful duration of local anesthesia with no major safety issues, and may be useful for the eye-care professional. Registered with clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04513652 and NCT04829344. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) is considered the cornerstone in achieving anesthesia for mandibular molars. However, failure of routine lignocaine IANB to achieve profound anesthesia of the pulp has been reported in patients with molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH). Articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 has proven to provide total pain relief during most dental procedures. Aims: This study aimed to assess and compare the pain perception level in children using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) during root canal treatment after administering 4% articaine buccal infiltration (BI), 4% articaine IANB, and 2% lignocaine IANB. Subjects and Methods: Twenty-seven children aged 8–12 years, requiring root canal treatment of mandibular first permanent molars with MIH were randomly allocated into three groups - 4% articaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) BI, 4% articaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) IANB, and 2% lignocaine IANB. The efficacy of the anesthetic was determined by rating the pain perception of the child using a VAS. Statistical Analysis Used: The scores marked by the children on the VAS were recorded and were statistically analyzed. Data were entered into Microsoft excel data sheet and were analyzed using SPSS for Windows version 17.0. Results: Patients anesthetized with 4% articaine IANB presented lesser pain scores compared to IANB with 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine BI on access opening and instrumentation of the root canals. Conclusion: 4% articaine IANB has better anesthetic efficacy than 4% articaine BI and 2% lignocaine IANB in anesthetising mandibular first permanent molars with MIH.

Introduction: Mylohyoid mandibular anesthesia is not a standard and independent primary anesthesia for performing surgery on mandibular teeth. Objective: The objective was to examine the success of achieved mylohyoid anesthesia for mandibular molar surgery, by injecting an anesthetic that could penetrate the bone in the lingual region of the mandible, using the technique for modified mylohyoid mandibular anesthesia. Materials and methods: In the pilot study, 10 patients were divided into 2 equal groups (of 5 patients each), of both sexes and aged 18-75, who required mandibular anesthesia owing to mandibular molar surgery. In group I, 3.5 ml of 4% articaine with 1:100000 adrenaline, and the addition of 0.5 ml/4 mg of dexamethasone, was injected into the sublingual region of the corner of the mandible using a modified mylohyoid approach; in group II, 4 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:100000 adrenaline was injected into the region of the mandibular foramen using the approach for standard mandibular conduction direct anesthesia. A visual analogue scale (VAS) was used for the subjective assessment of the pain during surgery in patients, the recorded duration of the realized mandibular anesthesia, as well as the total effectiveness of the achieved anesthesia, expressed in percentages. Results: A successful intervention was achieved in all patients, with different VAS scores, but within the values indicating successful anesthesia (group I: 17.40±11.10mm; group II: 12.80±4.55mm). A longer duration of anesthesia was achieved in the first group-205.2 min (3h 25 min), compared to the second group-182 min (3h 2 min). Conclusion: Mylohyoid mandibular anesthesia with 4% articaine and with adrenaline and dexamethasone could be applied as primary anesthesia for the purpose of successfully achieving standard mandibular anesthesia.

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine as supplementary buccal infiltration after failed inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Methods: MESH terms and specific keywords were used to search Scopus, EBSCOhost, Cochrane Library, and PubMed. Randomized clinical trials were among the included articles that compared the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine or 2% lignocaine as supplementary buccal infiltration following a failed IANB in patients with chronic irreversible pulpitis. Results: Five of the 871 studies that were reviewed were given full-text reading considerations, and three studies were subjected to qualitative analysis after meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In 234 patients altogether, patients anesthetized with 4% articaine buccal infiltration had a success rate of 61%–83.3% in the 118 patients in the 4% articaine BI group and 116 patients in the 2% lidocaine BI group. Conclusion: Supplemental buccal infiltration with 4% articaine in permanent mandibular molars was associated with greater anesthetic efficacy than the 2% lignocaine in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis after unsuccessful IANB.