Search

Introduction The purpose of this prospective study was to determine the effect of a combination of nitrous oxide/oxygen and 1 set of supplemental intraligamentary/periodontal ligament (PDL) injections followed by a second set of PDL injections on anesthetic success in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP). Methods Ninety-four patients with a mandibular posterior tooth diagnosed with SIP received nitrous oxide/oxygen and an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Patients rated the pain of PDL injections and endodontic access on a visual analog scale. If moderate to severe pain was felt during treatment, the operator administered 1 set of supplemental PDL injections with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. If moderate to severe pain was felt again during treatment, the operator administered a second set of supplemental PDL injections. Anesthetic success was defined as having no to mild pain during endodontic treatment. Results The success of the IANB with nitrous oxide was 44% (95% confidence interval [CI], 34%–54%). The overall anesthetic success rate (IANB with PDL injections) was increased from 69% (95% CI, 60%–78%) with 1 set of PDL injections to 80% (95% CI, 72%–88%) with a second set of PDL injections. Conclusions Although the second set of PDL injections increased anesthetic success, it was not sufficient to ensure complete pulpal anesthesia.

The inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) does not always result in successful pulpal anesthesia. Nitrous oxide may increase the success of the IANB. The purpose of this investigation was to study the effect of nitrous oxide/oxygen (N(2)O/O(2)) on IANB injection pain and mandibular pulpal anesthesia in asymptomatic subjects. One hundred five asymptomatic subjects received an IANB after the administration of N(2)O/O(2) or room air/oxygen (air/O(2)) at 2 separate appointments. After the IANB, subjects rated their level of pain for each phase of the injection (needle insertion, needle placement, and solution deposition) using a Heft Parker visual analog scale. Pulpal anesthesia was evaluated with an electric pulp tester for 60 minutes. The mean pain rating for all 3 injection phases showed a statistically significant reduction in pain when N(2)O/O(2) was used compared with Air/O(2) (P < .05). Odds ratios demonstrated a statistically significant increase in IANB success for the N(2)O/O(2) group compared with the air/O(2) group. N(2)O/O(2) administration statistically decreased pain for all 3 injection phases of the IANB. In addition, nitrous oxide statistically increased the likelihood of pulpal anesthesia for posterior mandibular teeth. However, the incidence of pulpal anesthesia was not 100%.

There is evidence that the Computer-Controlled Local Anesthetic Device (CCLAD) decreases the pain of oral injections. The purpose of this study was to evaluate injection pain of the inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) using the CCLAD in an upright position versus a supine position. Additionally, we evaluated solution deposition pain with the CCLAD when compared to previous studies using a traditional syringe. One hundred ten asymptomatic subjects were randomly given IANBs using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine while in an upright sitting position and supine position, at 2 different appointments, spaced at least 2 weeks apart. Each subject rated the pain for needle insertion, needle placement, and solution deposition on a Heft-Parker visual analogue scale. Pain ratings were compared between the upright and supine positions using a repeated-measures analysis of variance with post hoc testing using the Tukey-Kramer procedure. Moderate to severe pain was reported by 10% to 13% of the patients for needle insertion, 74% to 75% for full needle placement, and 8% to 10% for solution deposition. There was no significant difference between groups for phases of the injection. When comparing the injection phases within the groups, the needle placement phase of the injection was statistically more painful than both the needle insertion phase and solution deposition phase (p = .0001). Using the CCLAD, IANB injection pain of the supine and upright positions was not statistically different. Needle placement was the most painful phase of the injection. Solution deposition pain was less with the CCLAD when compared to other studies of the IANB using a traditional syringe.

Introduction The pulpal anesthetic success rates for an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) alone in patients presenting with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis are less than adequate. Nitrous oxide and clonidine have shown increases in IANB success when administered individually, but their success has not been evaluated when used together. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to determine the effect of nitrous oxide/oxygen plus an IANB using lidocaine/clonidine on the success of the IANB in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and to evaluate the effect of clonidine on blood pressure and pulse. Methods Sixty-two emergency patients experiencing moderate to severe pain and a diagnosis of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis were enrolled. Subjects were randomly divided into 2 groups and received nitrous oxide/oxygen and an IANB using 2% lidocaine with either 27 μg clonidine or 18 μg epinephrine as vasoconstrictors. Blood pressure and pulse were recorded before and during the emergency endodontic treatment. Anesthetic success was defined as no or mild pain upon access and instrumentation of the canals. Results The pulpal anesthetic success rate in both treatments was 58%, with no significant difference between the groups. There was no statistically significant difference in pulse or systolic blood pressure with the use of clonidine compared with epinephrine. Diastolic blood pressure was significant. Conclusions The use of nitrous/oxide plus the addition of lidocaine/clonidine for the IANB in teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis resulted in no statistically significant difference in anesthetic success of the IANB. There were no statistically significant differences in pulse or systolic blood pressure with the use of clonidine compared with epinephrine; diastolic blood pressure was significant.

Objective: The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to assess using a periodontal ligament (PDL) injection as an aide to decrease palatal infiltration pain. Methods: A total of 133 subjects randomly received a PDL injection and alternative palatal infiltration or a mock PDL injection and conventional palatal infiltration at 2 separate appointments. PDL injection was given in the mid-palatal sulcus of the maxillary first molar. Mock PDL injection consisted of only needle insertion. All subjects then received a palatal infiltration administered into the blanched gingival tissue 3 mm (alternative palatal infiltration) or 7 mm (conventional palatal infiltration) from the gingival collar. Subjects recorded needle insertion and solution deposition pain using a Heft-Parker visual analog scale (VAS). Results: The combined PDL injection and alternative palatal infiltration had significantly decreased mean VAS ratings for needle insertion and solution deposition pain (P < .0001). Incidence of moderate/severe pain for needle insertion and solution deposition was reduced from 65% to 1% and from 65% to 2%, respectively. Conclusion: Providing PDL anesthesia into the mid-palatal sulcus of the maxillary first molar and then administering an alternative palatal infiltration into the blanched collar around the PDL molar site led to significant reductions in needle insertion and solution deposition pain compared with a mock PDL and conventional palatal infiltration.

Introduction The purpose of this prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to evaluate postoperative pain by using an oral dose regimen of methylprednisolone in symptomatic patients with pulpal necrosis and symptomatic apical periodontitis, a periapical radiolucency, and experiencing preoperative moderate to severe pain. Methods One hundred twenty-five adult symptomatic patients presenting for emergency endodontic treatment with a pulpal diagnosis of necrosis and symptomatic apical periodontitis, a periapical radiolucency, and experiencing moderate to severe pain participated. All patients received complete endodontic debridement and were randomly divided into 2 groups. In a double-blind manner, the groups received either an oral regimen of methylprednisolone (96 mg immediately after treatment followed by 48 mg each day for 5 consecutive days) or a lactose placebo. All patients received 600 mg ibuprofen and an opioid-containing escape medication to take if needed. Patients completed a 7-day diary to record pain and number of analgesic medications taken each day. Results Moderate to severe pain was experienced by 40%–50% of the patients on day 1 and 31% of the patients on day 2, with the pain ratings decreasing during the next 7 days. There were no statistically significant differences in pain ratings between the methylprednisolone and placebo groups. Conclusions When compared with a placebo, the current regimen of oral methylprednisolone did not significantly reduce postoperative pain after complete debridement of symptomatic patients presenting for emergency endodontic treatment with a pulpal diagnosis of necrosis and symptomatic apical periodontitis, periapical radiolucency, and experiencing moderate to severe pain.

Introduction Recent studies have investigated the relationship between pain perception and specific phenotypes such as red hair color and various eye colors. Further investigations into biomarkers as they relate to pain could be useful in understanding underlying genetic components involved in these pathways. Additionally, it would be clinically useful to determine if a patient would be more likely to experience pain during dental treatment based on eye color. The purpose of this study was to investigate a link between eye color and perceived injection pain in healthy, asymptomatic white women. Methods Three hundred healthy, adult, white female patients were included, 133 with dark eyes and 167 with light eyes. Dental anxiety was assessed with the Corah Dental Anxiety Scale. Subjects with their eye color masked by dark glasses received a right maxillary lateral incisor infiltration of 1 cartridge of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Patients rated their injection pain on a 170-mm Heft-Parker visual analog scale. Photographs of the subjects' eyes were taken after the infiltrations and categorized into dark- and light-eyed groups by 3 independent observers. Comparisons for injection pain were analyzed using analysis of variance and the Tukey-Kramer test. Results No significant differences were found for pain of injection between dark- or light-eyed subjects. Conclusions Eye color was not shown to be a predictor for injection pain in white women. Therefore, eye color would not be clinically useful in determining if a patient would be more likely to experience pain during dental treatment.

Additional studies are needed to evaluate intraseptal anesthesia in the mandibular first molar. The purpose of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of a primary intraseptal injection of articaine and lidocaine, administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery (CCLAD) system, in asymptomatic mandibular first molars. Using a crossover design, 100 subjects randomly received intraseptal injections of 1.4 mL of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine, both with 1:100,000 epinephrine, at 2 separate appointments. Injections were given in the interdental papillae, mesial (0.7 mL) and distal (0.7 mL) to the first molar. An electric pulp tester was used to test for pulpal anesthesia. Pain of injection, postoperative pain, and pulse rate were also evaluated. Data were statistically analyzed. Anesthetic success rate for the mandibular first molar was 32% for articaine and 30% for lidocaine, with no statistically significant difference (p = .8689) between the two. No significant differences were found between formulations for pain of injection. The intraseptal injection did not cause a clinically meaningful increase in pulse rate. Postoperative pain decreased each day with no significant differences between formulations. In conclusion, a primary intraseptal injection does not achieve a high success rate of pulpal anesthesia in the mandibular first molar.

The purpose of this study was to determine anesthetic success in adjacent teeth following a primary infiltration of the maxillary lateral incisor and first molar using 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Three hundred eight asymptomatic subjects received an infiltration of a cartridge of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine over the maxillary lateral incisor (163 subjects) or first molar (145 subjects). Pulpal anesthesia of the injected tooth and adjacent mesial and distal teeth was monitored with the electric pulp tester in 2-minute cycles for a total of 60 minutes. No response from the subject at the maximum output (80 reading) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Comparisons of the odds of pulpal anesthesia (defined as an 80/80 response to electric pulp testing over 60 minutes) between the experimentally injected tooth and adjacent teeth were analyzed using mixed-models, repeated-measures logistic regression. When compared with the lateral incisor infiltration, the adjacent mesial tooth (central incisor) and distal tooth (canine) achieved statistically lower anesthetic success. When compared with the first molar, the mesial tooth (second premolar) did not differ statistically. However, significant differences were shown between the first molar and the second molar, with the distal tooth (second molar) achieving a statistically higher rate of pulpal anesthesia, which was related to a better duration of anesthesia. For asymptomatic patients, local anesthesia of the adjacent mesial (central incisor) and distal (canine) teeth to the infiltrated lateral incisor had lower pulpal anesthetic success. Because standard infiltration anesthesia of the lateral incisor is of short duration, repeating the infiltration at 30 minutes will result in a high incidence of pulpal anesthesia for 60 minutes. Local anesthesia of the adjacent distal tooth to the first molar (second molar) had a statistically higher rate of total pulpal anesthesia than the infiltrated first molar due to the longer duration of pulpal anesthesia. However, if pulpal anesthesia is required for 60 minutes in the first and second molars, the clinician may need to add an additional infiltration to ensure anesthesia.

The purpose of this investigation was to compare ibuprofen versus an ibuprofen/acetaminophen combination for postoperative pain control in a patient model specific to teeth diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and symptomatic apical periodontitis. One hundred and two patients presenting with moderate to severe pain from a maxillary or mandibular posterior tooth diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and symptomatic apical periodontitis were included. Following local anesthetic administration, complete endodontic cleaning and shaping was performed. Patients were randomly assigned to receive identically appearing tablets of ibuprofen 200 mg or a combination of ibuprofen 200 mg/acetaminophen 216.7 mg with instructions to take 3 tablets every 6 hours as needed for pain. Patients were also given a prescription for an escape medication to take if the study medications did not adequately control their pain. A 4-day diary was used to record pain ratings and medication use. Moderate to severe pain was experienced by 59–61% of the patients on postoperative day 1 and 50–57% of the patients on day 2, with the pain ratings decreasing over the next 2 days. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in postoperative pain, percussion pain, or medication use. There was no difference between ibuprofen and the combination of ibuprofen/acetaminophen in the reduction of postoperative pain following endodontic debridement in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and symptomatic apical periodontitis.

Introduction Previously, ketorolac was available for primary use only via intravenous and intramuscular routes. Its availability in intranasal form offers an alternative route of administration that patients can self-administer. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of intranasal ketorolac (Sprix; Egalet US Inc, Wayne, PA) with a combination of ibuprofen/acetaminophen in an acute pain model of untreated endodontic patients experiencing moderate to severe pain and symptomatic apical periodontitis. Methods Seventy patients experiencing moderate to severe pain, a pulpal diagnosis of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis or necrosis, and a periapical diagnosis of symptomatic apical periodontitis participated. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups and received either 31.5 mg intranasal ketorolac and placebo capsules or 1000 mg acetaminophen/600 mg ibuprofen capsules and a mock nasal spray. Patients recorded perceived pain scores on a visual analog scale every 15 minutes from drug administration up to 240 minutes. The time to 50% pain relief, the first sign of pain relief, and meaningful pain relief were recorded, and the data were analyzed. Results A decline in reported pain was observed until 120 minutes after dosing, after which reported pain remained relatively constant. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups for the time to 50% pain relief, the first sign of pain relief, or meaningful pain relief. Conclusions The effectiveness of intranasal ketorolac was not significantly different from that of a 1000 mg acetaminophen/600 mg ibuprofen combination. Intranasal ketorolac provides a nonnarcotic alternative and an additional route of medication administration to practicing clinicians.

Introduction Needle-free anesthetic delivery is a promising alternative to traditional anesthetic routes of administration. The purpose of this study was to determine the patient preference for and pulpal anesthetic efficacy of a 3% tetracaine plus 0.05% oxymetazoline (Kovanaze) nasal spray in maxillary lateral incisors and first premolars. Methods Fifty adult subjects randomly received a 3% tetracaine plus 0.05% oxymetazoline (Kovanaze) nasal spray and mock infiltration or a mock nasal spray and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine infiltration at the maxillary lateral incisor or first premolar in 2 appointments spaced at least 1 week apart in a single-blind cross-over design. Pulpal anesthesia was evaluated with an electric pulp tester. Side effects and subject preferences were also recorded. Results Anesthetic success was significantly lower for the Kovanaze nasal spray and mock infiltration (22%–37%) than for the mock nasal spray and lidocaine infiltration (89%–91%). Subjects reported more unwanted effects (nasal drainage and congestion, burning, pressure, and sinus congestion) after the Kovanaze nasal spray and mock infiltration than the mock spray and maxillary infiltration. Before participating in the study, more subjects (56%) preferred the nasal spray route versus a standard infiltration (44%). After experiencing both routes of administration, 100% of subjects preferred the standard infiltration. Conclusions The 3% tetracaine plus 0.05% oxymetazoline (Kovanaze) nasal spray provided significantly less successful pulpal anesthesia than the lidocaine infiltration, was less preferable, and caused more unwanted effects.

Introduction Prilocaine plain has a high pH and concentration (4%), which could decrease the pain of injection and increase success. The purpose of this study was to compare pain associated with anesthetic solution deposition and the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with the combination of prilocaine and lidocaine versus a lidocaine and lidocaine combination when used for inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANBs). Methods One hundred eighteen asymptomatic subjects were randomly given a combination of 1 cartridge of 4% prilocaine plain plus 1 cartridge of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or a combination of 2 cartridges of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for the IANB at 2 separate appointments. Subjects rated the pain associated with anesthetic solution deposition of injection. Mandibular teeth were tested with an electric pulp tester every 4 minutes for 57 minutes. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained within 17 minutes and the 80 reading was continuously sustained for 57 minutes. Comparisons for anesthetic success were analyzed using the exact McNemar test, and pain ratings associated with anesthetic solution deposition were analyzed using multiple Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank tests; both were adjusted using the step-down Bonferroni method of Holm. Results Four percent prilocaine plain was significantly less painful upon anesthetic solution deposition. Pulpal anesthetic success was not significantly different between the 2 combinations. Conclusions The combination of 4% prilocaine plain plus 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine did not increase pulpal anesthetic success for IANBs compared with a combination of 2 cartridges of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Pain associated with anesthetic solution deposition from the first cartridge of 4% prilocaine plain was significantly less when compared with the first cartridge of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine.

Introduction Incision and drainage of symptomatic emergency patients with facial swelling is painful even after local anesthetics are administered. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the pain of infiltration and the pain of an incision and drainage procedure of a buffered versus a nonbuffered 4% lidocaine formulation in symptomatic emergency patients presenting with a diagnosis of pulpal necrosis, associated periapical area, and an acute clinical swelling. Methods Eighty-eight emergency patients were randomly divided into 2 groups to receive 2 intraoral infiltration injections (mesial and distal to the swelling) of either 4% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine buffered with 0.18 mL 8.4% sodium bicarbonate using the Onpharma (Los Gatos, CA) buffering system or 4% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Subjects rated the pain of needle insertion, needle placement, and solution deposition for each injection using a 170-mm visual analog scale. An incision and drainage procedure was performed, and subjects rated the pain of incision, drainage, and dissection on a 170-mm visual analog scale. Results No significant differences between the buffered and nonbuffered 4% lidocaine formulations were found for needle insertion, placement, and solution deposition of the infiltration injections or for the treatment phases of incision, drainage, and dissection. Conclusions Buffering a 4% lidocaine formulation did not significantly decrease the pain of infiltrations or significantly decrease the pain of the incision and drainage procedure when compared with a nonbuffered 4% lidocaine formulation in symptomatic patients with a diagnosis of pulpal necrosis and associated acute swelling.

Introduction Articaine is superior to lidocaine when used as a primary buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar. Buffered local anesthetics have been purported to improve anesthetic success. Buffering a 4% articaine formulation may increase the success of a mandibular first molar buccal infiltration. The purpose of this study was to compare the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with a buffered 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine formulation versus a nonbuffered 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine formulation as a primary buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar. Methods Eighty adults randomly received mandibular buccal infiltrations using 4% articaine with 100,000 epinephrine buffered with 8.4% sodium bicarbonate (18 mEq) and 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in a double-blind manner at 2 separate appointments. An electric pulp tester was used to test the first molar for pulpal anesthesia every 30 seconds for the first 5 minutes and every minute for the remaining 55 minutes. Successful pulpal anesthesia was defined as 2 consecutive 80/80 readings with the electric pulp tester. Pain ratings for each injection were recorded as well as the onset time of pulpal anesthesia. Results Anesthetic success rates for buffered articaine and nonbuffered articaine were 71% and 65%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the formulations ( P = .3018). No significant differences were found between the 2 formulations for pain of injection or onset of anesthesia. Conclusions Buffered articaine did not provide any advantage over nonbuffered articaine for anesthetic success, anesthesia onset, or pain of injection for a primary buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar.

Introduction It has been recommended to place patients in an upright position after administration of an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB), theoretically allowing the anesthetic to diffuse in an inferior direction and resulting in better pulpal anesthesia. The purpose of this study was to compare an upright versus a supine position on the success of pulpal anesthesia when an IANB was administered in asymptomatic teeth. Methods One hundred ten asymptomatic subjects were randomly given IANBs by using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine while they were in an upright position and supine position at 2 different appointments spaced at least 2 weeks apart. Pulpal anesthesia was measured in the molars, premolars, and incisors with an electric pulp tester in 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes. Anesthetic success was defined as the subject achieving 2 consecutive 80 readings within 15 minutes of the injection and sustaining the 80 reading for 60 minutes. Success was analyzed by using a mixed model logistic regression. Results Pulpal anesthesia for the supine position was not statistically more successful than the upright position in the second molars (73% vs 65%), first molars (59% vs 54%), lateral incisors (28% vs 23%), and central incisors (11% vs 8%), respectively. The supine position significantly improved success in the second premolars (63% vs 53%) and first premolars (75% vs 64%). Conclusions The supine and upright positions were equally successful in the molars and anterior teeth. The supine position was more successful in the premolars. However, clinically, neither position for the IANB administration would provide complete pulpal anesthesia.

There are no prospective endodontic studies to determine the outcome of an incision and drainage (ID) procedure for swelling in healthy, endodontic patients. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blind study was to compare the postoperative course of ID with drain placement versus a mock ID procedure with mock drain placement after endodontic debridement in swollen emergency patients with symptomatic teeth and a pulpal diagnosis of necrosis.Eighty-one adult emergency patients presenting with clinical swelling received either penicillin or, if allergic, clindamycin and complete endodontic debridement, and then were randomly divided into 2 treatment groups: ID with drain placement or a mock ID procedure with mock drain placement. At the end of the appointment, all patients received a combination of ibuprofen/acetaminophen and, if needed, an opioid-containing escape medication. Patients recorded their pain and medication use for 4 days postoperatively. Success was defined as no or mild postoperative pain and no use of an opioid-containing escape medication. Success was evaluated using repeated measure mixed model logistic regression.Both groups had a decrease in postoperative pain and medication use over the 4 days. The mock ID group had significantly higher success than the ID group (odds ratio = 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-3.41). The success rate was 45% with the mock ID and 33% with the ID.After endodontic debridement, patients who received a mock ID procedure with mock drain placement had more success than patients who received ID with drain placement. Both groups clinically improved over 4 days.

Introduction Previous studies in patients with irreversible pulpitis have reported increased success of the inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) using premedication with ketorolac. Preemptive nitrous oxide administration has also shown an increase in the success of the IANB. Recently, ketorolac has been made available for intranasal delivery. Perhaps combining ketorolac and nitrous oxide would increase success. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to determine the effect of a combination of intranasal ketorolac and nitrous oxide/oxygen on the anesthetic success of the IANB in patients presenting with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Methods One hundred two patients experiencing spontaneous moderate to severe pain with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in a mandibular posterior tooth participated. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups and received either 31.5 mg intranasal ketorolac or intranasal saline placebo 20 minutes before the administration of nitrous oxide/oxygen. Ten minutes after the administration of nitrous oxide/oxygen, the IANB was given. After profound lip numbness, endodontic treatment was performed. Success was defined as the ability to perform endodontic access and instrumentation with no pain or mild pain. Results The odds of success for the IANB was 1.631 in the intranasal saline/nitrous oxide group versus the intranasal ketorolac/nitrous oxide group with no significant difference between the groups (P = .2523). Conclusions Premedication with intranasal ketorolac did not significantly increase the odds of success for the IANB over the use of nitrous oxide/oxygen alone. Supplemental anesthesia will still be needed to achieve adequate anesthesia.

Background and Overview Profound pulpal anesthesia after a successful inferior alveolar nerve block can be difficult to achieve when the clinical condition is a pulpal diagnosis of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. The authors reviewed the literature as it relates to the anesthesia necessary for endodontic therapy of patients with painful, vital, mandibular teeth diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Conclusions Supplemental anesthetic techniques and medications are available that can be used to improve pulpal anesthesia for patients with the clinical condition of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Practical Implications The authors identified treatment recommendations for anesthesia in the case of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis based on a review of the available evidence.

Introduction The purpose of this prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to determine the effects of a combination dose of 1000 mg acetaminophen/10 mg hydrocodone on cold pulpal testing in patients experiencing symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Methods One hundred emergency patients in moderate to severe pain diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis of a mandibular posterior tooth randomly received, in a double-blind manner, identical capsules of either a combination of 1000 mg acetaminophen/10 hydrocodone or placebo. Cold testing with Endo-Ice (1,1,1,2 tetrafluoroethane; Hygenic Corp, Akron, OH) was performed at baseline and every 10 minutes for 60 minutes. Pain to cold testing was recorded by the patient using a Heft-Parker visual analog scale. Patients' reaction to the cold application was also rated. Results Cold testing at baseline and at 10 minutes resulted in severe pain for both the acetaminophen/hydrocodone and placebo groups. Although pain ratings decreased from 20–60 minutes, the ratings still resulted in moderate pain. Patient reaction to cold testing showed that 56%–62% had a severe reaction. Although the reactions decreased in severity over the 60 minutes, 20%–34% still had severe reactions at 60 minutes. Regarding pain and patients' reactions to cold testing, there were no significant differences between the combination acetaminophen/hydrocodone and placebo groups at any time period. Conclusions A combination dose of 1000 mg of acetaminophen/10 mg of hydrocodone did not statistically affect cold pulpal testing in patients presenting with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Patients experienced moderate to severe pain and reactions to cold testing.

Phentolamine mesylate has been reported to be an effective local anesthetic reversal agent for soft tissue but has not been studied regarding reversal of pulpal anesthesia. The authors conducted a prospective randomized, single-blind study comparing the reversal of pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia when phentolamine was administered at 30 minutes versus 60 minutes after the administration of an inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block.Ninety adult subjects received 2 sets of injections consisting of an IAN block followed by an injection of phentolamine at 30 minutes and a sham injection at 60 minutes or a sham injection given at 30 minutes and a phentolamine injection given at 60 minutes in 2 separate appointments. The authors used an electric pulp tester to test the first and second molars, premolars, and incisors for pulpal anesthesia in 4-minute cycles for 120 minutes. Lip and tongue soft tissue anesthesia was also monitored.Phentolamine significantly (P.05) reduced duration of both pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia when administered at either 30 or 60 minutes after an IAN block.Phentolamine would be beneficial for patients who would like to experience a faster return to normal soft tissue function and sensation after the administration of local anesthesia. However, because pulpal anesthesia is also reversed fairly rapidly, phentolamine should be administered at the end of the dental appointment.

In the treatment of patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, endodontic debridement is a predictable method to relieve pain. However, there are clinical situations in which emergency care cannot be provided immediately. An unexplored treatment option in these cases may be the use of a long-acting anesthetic to reduce pain in untreated irreversible pulpitis. Some medical studies have shown potential for infiltrations of liposomal bupivacaine (Exparel; Pacira Pharmaceuticals, San Diego, CA) to prolong pain relief and reduce opioid use postoperatively. The Food and Drug Administration has approved Exparel only for infiltrations; therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare an infiltration of liposomal bupivacaine versus bupivacaine for pain control in untreated, symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.Ninety-five emergency patients received 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine via infiltration or an inferior alveolar nerve block to relieve their initial presenting pain. Patients then randomly received either 4 mL liposomal bupivacaine (13.3 mg/mL) or 4 mL 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine by infiltration. Patients received a diary for the day of the appointment and 3 days postinjection to record soft tissue numbness, pain levels, and analgesic (non-narcotic and narcotic) use.No significant differences (P .05) were found between the 2 anesthetic formulations for pain or the use of pain medications. A statistically higher level of soft tissue numbness was found on days 1 to 3 for the liposomal bupivacaine group.Although liposomal bupivacaine had some effect on soft tissue anesthesia, it did not reduce pain to manageable clinical levels in patients presenting with untreated, symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

Introduction Previous studies have reported high levels of success with intraseptal injection for various dental procedures but provide limited information on the use of the injection during endodontic treatment. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental intraseptal technique in mandibular posterior teeth diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis when the conventional inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block failed. Methods One hundred patients with a diagnosis of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in a mandibular posterior tooth were recruited. Following profound lip numbness after the administration of the conventional IAN block, endodontic treatment was initiated. Patients still experiencing moderate to severe pain during treatment were administered mesial and distal supplemental intraseptal injections using 0.7 mL 4% articaine with 1:000,000 epinephrine administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery unit. Success was defined as the ability to perform endodontic access and instrumentation with mild to no pain. Results Success with the IAN block was achieved in 25% of patients. Supplemental intraseptal injections provided success in 29% of patients. Conclusions Supplemental intraseptal injections achieved profound pulpal anesthesia in 29% of patients when the IAN block failed. This low level of success would not provide predictable levels of anesthesia for patients requiring emergency endodontic treatment for symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth.

Introduction Medical studies have shown some potential for infiltrations of liposomal bupivacaine (Exparel; Pacira Pharmaceuticals, San Diego, CA), a slow-release bupivacaine solution, to extend postoperative benefits of numbness/pain relief for up to several days. Because the Food and Drug Administration has approved Exparel only for infiltrations, we wanted to evaluate if it would be effective as an infiltration to control postoperative pain. The purpose of this study was to compare an infiltration of bupivacaine with liposomal bupivacaine for postoperative numbness and pain in symptomatic patients diagnosed with pulpal necrosis experiencing moderate to severe preoperative pain. Methods One hundred patients randomly received a 4.0-mL buccal infiltration of either bupivacaine or liposomal bupivacaine after endodontic debridement. For postoperative pain, patients were given ibuprofen/acetaminophen, and they could receive narcotic pain medication as an escape. Patients recorded their level of numbness, pain, and medication use the night of the appointment and over the next 5 days. Success was defined as no or mild postoperative pain and no narcotic use. Results The success rate was 29% for the liposomal group and 22% for the bupivacaine group, with no significant difference ( P = .4684) between the groups. Liposomal bupivacaine had some effect on soft tissue numbness, pain, and use of non-narcotic medications, but it was not clinically significant. There was no significant difference in the need for escape medication. Conclusions For symptomatic patients diagnosed with pulpal necrosis experiencing moderate to severe preoperative pain, a 4.0-mL infiltration of liposomal bupivacaine did not result in a statistically significant increase in postoperative success compared with an infiltration of 4.0 mL bupivacaine.

Purpose The implementation of a pharmacist-led anticoagulation management service (AMS) and the clinical outcomes of inpatients receiving warfarin management are described. Summary An AMS was established at St. Mary’s Medical Center (SMMC) in Duluth, Minnesota, in November 2003 at the request of orthopedic surgeons to manage warfarin for their patients postoperatively. The AMS was also available to other inpatients by physician request. All AMS pharmacists received didactic and experiential training. Each day, the managing pharmacist, usually the decentralized pharmacist, was responsible for checking the patients’ International Normalized Ratio (INR); reviewing other pertinent laboratory test values, any medication changes, and vital signs; monitoring changes in the patients’ clinical status, and writing an order for a warfarin dose. A database was created to help monitor patients managed by the AMS and to analyze monthly outcomes data. Clinical outcomes data were evaluated to identify areas of improvement for the AMS. All hospitalizations for patients who received anticoagulation therapy with warfarin managed by the AMS from January 1, 2006, through August 31, 2007, were analyzed. Primary endpoints, including thrombosis and bleeding complications during hospitalization, were identified for inclusion in the final hospital discharge data. Of the 2794 hospitalizations for patients managed by the AMS evaluated, 59 complications were identified. Of these, 14 (0.5%) were thrombosis events and 45 (1.6%) were bleeding events. INR results were also analyzed as secondary endpoints. Conclusion The evaluation of outcomes of the inpatient-based AMS at SMMC provided critical information to the anticoagulation subcommittee for consideration of quality-improvement efforts.

Introduction Phentolamine has been reported to be an effective local anesthetic reversal agent for soft tissue but has not been studied in endodontics. The purpose of this preliminary, prospective, randomized, single-blind study was to evaluate the reversal of soft-tissue anesthesia using phentolamine in asymptomatic endodontic patients. Methods Eighty-five adult subjects having a maxillary or mandibular asymptomatic tooth requiring endodontic therapy received either phentolamine or sham treatment(s) at the end of the endodontic treatment appointment. Soft-tissue anesthesia was monitored by subjects every 15 minutes for 5 hours. Subjects reported postoperative injection site pain and tooth pain using a Heft-Parker visual analog score every 30 minutes for the first 2 postoperative hours and every hour for 3 hours. Results There was a statistically significant difference in time to return-to-normal sensation for the maxillary lip/cheek and mandibular lip. Subjects who received phentolamine experienced an 88-minute decrease in time to return-to-normal maxillary lip/cheek sensation and a 47-minute decrease in time to return-to-normal mandibular lip sensation. The administration of phentolamine was not significantly more painful than administration of a sham treatment, and patients who received phentolamine did not experience significantly more postoperative pain at the injection site. Postoperative complications were minimal, and no clinically significant adverse reactions to the phentolamine were reported. Conclusions Phentolamine would be beneficial for asymptomatic endodontic patients who would like to experience a faster return-to-normal soft-tissue function and sensation after the administration of local anesthesia.

Introduction The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine the anesthetic success of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block, and supplemental articaine buccal infiltration after a failed IAN block, in first and second molars and premolars in patients presenting with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Methods As part of 6 studies, 375 emergency patients presenting with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis received 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine via an IAN block. After profound lip numbness, endodontic access and instrumentation were initiated. If the patient felt moderate to severe pain, a supplemental buccal infiltration of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was administered (204 patients), and endodontic treatment continued. Success was defined as the ability to access and instrument the tooth without pain (visual analogue scale rating of 0) or mild pain (visual analogue scale rating less than or equal to 54 mm). Results IAN block success was 28% for the first molars, 25% for the second molars, and 39% for the premolars. There were no significant differences when comparing molars with premolars. For the supplemental articaine buccal infiltration, success was 42% for the first molars, 48% for the second molars, and 73% for the premolars. There were no significant differences when comparing the molars, but there was a significant difference when comparing the premolars with the molars. Conclusions For patients presenting with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, the success rates for the IAN block and supplemental buccal infiltration of articaine of the molars and premolars would not be high enough to ensure profound pulpal anesthesia.

Introduction Patients without a dentist or access to care may present to emergency rooms with pain. They are often prescribed medications until they can be treated. There are no studies to show if emergency endodontic debridement is better than giving medications during this symptomatic period. The purpose of this prospective, randomized study was to compare debridement versus no debridement on postoperative pain in emergency patients with symptomatic teeth, a pulpal diagnosis of necrosis, and a periapical radiolucency. Methods Ninety-five patients presenting with moderate to severe pain were analyzed. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: group 1 received anesthesia and endodontic debridement, and group 2 received anesthesia but no debridement. At the end of the appointment, all patients were given ibuprofen/acetaminophen. If needed, they could receive an escape medication. Patients received a 5-day diary to record their pain levels and medication taken. Success was defined as no or mild postoperative pain and no use of escape medication. Success data were analyzed using a logistic regression. Results Both groups had a decrease in postoperative pain and medication use over the 5 days. The debridement group had a significantly higher success rate than the no debridement group. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups with respect to escape drug use. Conclusions Patients receiving debridement or no debridement had a decrease in postoperative pain over the 5 days. Debridement resulted in a statistically higher success rate, but there was no significant difference in the need for escape medication.

Introduction Medical studies have suggested that buffering local anesthetic may increase the ability to achieve anesthesia. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of 4% buffered lidocaine on the anesthetic success of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block in patients experiencing symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Methods One hundred emergency patients diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis of a mandibular posterior tooth randomly received a conventional IAN block using either 2.8 mL 4% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2.8 mL 4% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine buffered with sodium bicarbonate in a double-blind manner. For the buffered solution, each cartridge was buffered with 8.4% sodium bicarbonate using the OnPharma (Los Gatos, CA) system to produce a final concentration of 0.18 mEq/mL sodium bicarbonate. Fifteen minutes after administration of the IAN block, profound lip numbness was confirmed, and endodontic access was initiated. Success was defined as no or mild pain (≤54 mm on a 170-mm visual analog scale) on access or instrumentation of the root canal. Results The success rate for the IAN block was 32% for the buffered group and 40% for the nonbuffered group, with no significant difference ( P = .4047) between the groups. Injection pain ratings for the IAN block were not significantly ( P = .9080) different between the 2 formulations. Conclusions For mandibular posterior teeth, a 4% buffered lidocaine formulation did not result in a statistically significant increase in the success rate or a decrease in injection pain of the IAN block in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

Introduction The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine the incidence of missed inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) blocks by using a 1- or 2-cartridge volume of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in vital asymptomatic teeth and in emergency patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Methods As part of 37 studies, 3169 subjects/patients were evaluated for missed IAN blocks. The study included 2450 asymptomatic subjects and 719 emergency patients presenting with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Each subject or patient received either a 1- or 2-cartridge volume of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. A missed block was defined as no lip numbness at 15–20 minutes after the IAN block. The effect of anesthetic volume on the incidence of missed blocks was assessed by using mixed models logistic regression with individual studies as a random effect. Results The incidence of missed blocks for asymptomatic subjects was 6.3% for the 1-cartridge volume and 3.8% for the 2-cartridge volume. For patients presenting with irreversible pulpitis, the incidence of missed blocks was 7.7% for the 1-cartridge volume and 2.3% for the 2-cartridge volume. In both asymptomatic subjects and patients with irreversible pulpitis, the 2-cartridge volume was significantly ( P = .0395) better than the 1-cartridge volume. There were no significant effects for pulpal diagnosis ( P = .7523) or the pulpal diagnosis and anesthetic volume interaction ( P = .3973). Conclusions Concerning missed IAN blocks, we concluded that administration of a 2-cartridge volume was significantly better ( P = .0395) than a 1-cartridge volume in both asymptomatic subjects and emergency patients presenting with irreversible pulpitis.

Introduction In theory, using 3% mepivacaine initially for an inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block would decrease the pain of injection, provide faster onset, and increase anesthetic success. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with a combination of 3% mepivacaine/2% lidocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) versus a combination of 2% lidocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine)/2% lidocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) in IAN blocks. Injection pain was also studied. Methods One hundred asymptomatic subjects were randomly given a combination of a 1-cartridge volume of 3% mepivacaine plus a 1-cartridge volume of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and a combination of a 1-cartridge volume of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine plus a 1-cartridge volume of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for the IAN block at 2 separate appointments. Subjects rated the pain of injection. The molars, premolars, and incisors were tested with an electric pulp tester in 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes. Anesthetic success was defined as the subject achieving 2 consecutive 80 readings within 15 minutes after completion of the IAN blocks and sustaining the 80 reading for 60 minutes. Results Success was not significantly different (P > .05) between the 2 combinations. No statistical differences in injection pain or onset times were found. Conclusions The combination of 3% mepivacaine plus 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was equivalent to the combination of 2 cartridges of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in terms of injection pain, onset time, and pulpal anesthetic success for the IAN block.

Introduction The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine the success of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block using either 3.6 mL or 1.8 mL 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in patients presenting with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Methods As part of 7 previously published studies, 319 emergency patients presenting with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis received either a 1.8-mL volume or 3.6-mL volume of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in an IAN block. One hundred ninety patients received a 1.8-mL volume, and 129 received a 3.6-mL volume. Endodontic emergency treatment was completed on each subject. Success was defined as the ability to access and instrument the tooth without pain (visual analog scale score of 0) or mild pain (VAS rating ≤54 mm). Results Success of the 1.8-mL volume was 28%, and for the 3.6-mL volume it was 39%. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 volumes. Conclusions In conclusion, for patients presenting with irreversible pulpitis, success was not significantly different between a 3.6-mL volume and a 1.8-mL volume of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. The success rates (28%–39%) with either volume were not high enough to ensure complete pulpal anesthesia.

American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc. This paper was prepared for the 45th Annual California Regional Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, held in Ventura, Calif., April 2–4, 1975. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented. Publication elsewhere after publication in the JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY or the SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL is usually granted upon request to the Editor of the appropriate journal provided agreement to give proper credit is made. Discussion of this paper is invited. Three copies of any discussion should be sent to the Society of Petroleum Engineers office. Such discussion may be presented at the above meeting and, with the paper, may be considered for publication in one of the two SPE magazines. Abstract In laboratory screening of surfactant formulations, comparative values for losses of petroleum sulfonates due to adsorption on petroleum sulfonates due to adsorption on porous media can be determined by (a) injecting porous media can be determined by (a) injecting the formulation into berea sandstone cores at the temperature and with the brine of the proposed application, (b) flushing with brine, proposed application, (b) flushing with brine, (c) flushing with isopropyl alcohol, and (d) analysis of the eluted sulfonates. Effluent samples are analyzed by a modification of the Epton titration and the sulfonates contained in the isopropyl alcohol eluent are taken to be those adsorbed. Further, the effluent samples may be analyzed microgravimetrically to determine the average equivalent weight of the petroleum sulfonates. petroleum sulfonates Introduction Surfactants in contact with reservoir mineral exhibit several types of behavior. Adsorption of the surfactant is of interest since the concentration of the surfactant in the liquid phase is decreased and the efficiency and life of the process are diminished. A few recent papers on surfactant flooding have reported losses of the surfactants by adsorption. The experimental and analytical methods of determining adsorption losses in these papers include (a) flowing surfactant over a bed of crushed rock, flushing with brine, drying and extracting with methanol-benzene; (b) analysis of effluent fractions from berea cores by gravimetric methods and calculation of surfactant loss by material balance; (c) recirculation of surfactant through a berea core to equilibrium and determination of the adsorption loss by material balance; and (d) flowing surfactant through a berea core, flushing with brine followed by 50 percent isopropyl alcohol and analysis for radioactive surfactant in the effluent. While similar in many respects to these methods, the general procedure described affords reliable data with facility in screening surfactant systems for comparative adsorption losses. In the present paper we wish to discuss the general method further, particularly the quantitative analysis of particularly the quantitative analysis of petroleum sulfonates in effluent samples. petroleum sulfonates in effluent samples.