Controlled injection pressure.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Anesthesia, Dental↗
Biomedical subjects
A Reader
Publications and source records attributed to A Reader.
Anesthetic efficacy of ropivacaine in maxillary anterior infiltration.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective, randomized double-blind study was to evaluate and compare the anesthetic efficacy of 0.5% ropivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, of 0.5% ropivacaine, and of 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine in maxillary lateral incisor infiltrations. STUDY DESIGN: Forty subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, 3 infiltrations at 3 separate appointments, in a repeated-measures design. The injections consisted of an infiltration of 1.8 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine plain, an infiltration of 1.8 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and an infiltration of 1.8 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine (control solution). The maxillary lateral incisor pulpal anesthesia was evaluated with an electric pulp tester at 2-minute cycles for 90 minutes after injection. No response from the subject to the maximum output (80 reading) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained. The duration of pulpal anesthesia was recorded as the last 80 reading. RESULTS: One hundred percent of the subjects had lip numbness with all solutions. The anesthetic success rates for ropivacaine plain, ropivacaine with epinephrine, and bupivacaine with epinephrine were 68%, 75%, and 80%, respectively. There were no significant differences (P >.05) among the solutions. The duration of pulpal anesthesia (80 readings) for ropivacaine plain, ropivacaine with epinephrine, and bupivacaine with epinephrine was 13 minutes, 33 minutes, and 33 minutes, respectively. Ropivacaine plain had a significantly shorter duration of pulpal anesthesia than ropivacaine with epinephrine. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that 0.5% ropivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine was equivalent to 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine in pharmacologic action. The duration of pulpal anesthesia was less for ropivacaine without epinephrine. Ropivacaine with epinephrine has the potential to replace bupivacaine with epinephrine in clinical dental practice because of the decreased potential for cardiac and central nervous system toxicity.
Adult↗
Anesthetic efficacy of unilateral and bilateral inferior alveolar nerve blocks to determine cross innervation in anterior teeth.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to measure the degree of anesthesia obtained with unilateral and bilateral inferior alveolar nerve blocks to determine whether cross innervation occurs in anterior teeth. STUDY DESIGN: Through use of a repeated-measures design, 38 subjects randomly received unilateral or bilateral inferior alveolar nerve blocks at two separate appointments. Each inferior alveolar nerve block used 3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Mandibular anterior teeth were blindly pulp-tested at 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes' postinjection. No response from the subject to the maximum output (80 reading) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained. RESULTS: One hundred percent of the subjects had lip numbness with each of the inferior alveolar nerve block techniques. Anesthetic success rates of the unilateral inferior alveolar nerve block were 39% for the central incisor, 50% for the lateral incisor, and 68% for the canine. For the bilateral inferior alveolar nerve blocks, success rates were 66% for the central incisor, 74% for the lateral incisor, and 76% for the canine. The bilateral inferior alveolar nerve block success rates were significantly (P <.05) higher for the central and lateral incisors when compared with the success rates of the unilateral inferior alveolar nerve block. CONCLUSIONS: Cross innervation does seem to occur in mandibular central and lateral incisors. However, the success rates in these teeth with bilateral inferior alveolar nerve blocks were below 75%. The failure of the inferior alveolar nerve blocks to anesthetize the anterior teeth was the overriding reason for failure. Clinically, bilateral inferior alveolar nerve blocks to provide profound pulpal anesthesia in mandibular anterior teeth are not recommended on the basis of the results of this study.
Adult↗
Effect of prophylactic amoxicillin on endodontic flare-up in asymptomatic, necrotic teeth.
The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to determine the effect of prophylactic amoxicillin on the occurrence of endodontic flare-up in asymptomatic, necrotic teeth. Seventy patients participated and had a clinical diagnosis of an asymptomatic, necrotic tooth with associated periapical radiolucency. One hour before endodontic treatment, patients randomly received either 3 g of amoxicillin or 3 g of a placebo control in a double-blind manner. After endodontic treatment, each patient received: ibuprofen; acetaminophen with codeine (30 mg); and a 5 1/2-day diary to record pain, swelling, percussion pain, and number and type of pain medication taken. The results demonstrated 10% of the 70 patients had a flare-up characterized by moderate-to-severe postoperative pain or swelling that began approximately 30 h after endodontic treatment and persisted for an average of 74 h. Of the seven patients who had flare-ups, 4 were in the amoxicillin group and 3 were not. Prophylactic amoxicillin did not significantly (p = 0.80) influence the endodontic flare-up. We concluded that a prophylactic dose of amoxicillin before endodontic treatment of asymptomatic, necrotic teeth had no effect on the endodontic flare-up.
Acetaminophen↗
Effect of penicillin on postoperative endodontic pain and swelling in symptomatic necrotic teeth.
The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to determine the effect of penicillin on postoperative pain and swelling in symptomatic necrotic teeth. Forty-one emergency patients participated and each had a clinical diagnosis of a symptomatic necrotic tooth with associated periapical radiolucency. After endodontic treatment patients randomly received a 7-day oral dose (twenty-eight 500 mg capsules to be taken every 6 h) of either penicillin or a placebo control in a double-blind manner. Patients also received ibuprofen; acetaminophen with codeine (30 mg); and a 7-day diary to record pain, percussion pain, swelling, and number and type of pain medication taken. The majority of patients with symptomatic necrotic teeth had significant postoperative pain and require analgesic medication to manage this pain. The administration of penicillin postoperatively did not significantly (p > 0.05) reduce pain, percussion pain, swelling, or the number of analgesic medications taken for symptomatic necrotic teeth with periapical radiolucencies.
Acetaminophen↗
Effect of apical trephination on postoperative pain and swelling in symptomatic necrotic teeth.
The purpose of this prospective, randomized, blinded study was to determine the effect of apical trephination on postoperative pain and swelling in symptomatic necrotic teeth. Fifty emergency patients participated, and each had a clinical diagnosis of a symptomatic necrotic tooth with associated periapical radiolucency. After endodontic treatment, patients randomly received either an apical trephination or mock trephination procedure. The trephination procedure used a Stabident perforator to provide an initial opening in the cortical bone that was enlarged with files (#25 through #120) and an endodontic spoon. Postoperatively, each patient received: ibuprofen; acetaminophen with codeine (30 mg); and a 7-day diary to record pain, percussion pain, swelling, and number and type of pain medication taken. Results demonstrated the use of an apical trephination procedure did not significantly (p > 0.05) reduce pain, percussion pain, swelling, or number of ibuprofen tablets taken in symptomatic necrotic teeth with periapical radiolucencies. The trephination procedure did significantly (p < 0.05) reduce the use of acetaminophen with codeine overall for the 7 days. In conclusion, because there was not a significant reduction in pain, percussion pain, or swelling we cannot recommend the routine use of an apical trephination procedure, as used in this study, in symptomatic necrotic teeth with radiolucencies.
Acetaminophen↗
Anesthetic efficacy of a combination of hyaluronidase and lidocaine with epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve blocks.
The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of a buffered lidocaine with epinephrine solution compared to a combination buffered lidocaine with epinephrine plus hyaluronidase solution in inferior alveolar nerve blocks. Thirty subjects randomly received an inferior alveolar nerve block using 1 of the 2 solutions at 2 separate appointments using a repeated-measures design. Mandibular anterior and posterior teeth were blindly pulp tested at 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. No response from the subject to the maximum output (80 reading) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive readings of 80 were obtained. A postoperative survey was used to measure pain and trismus. The results demonstrated 100% of the subjects had profound lip numbness with both solutions for inferior alveolar nerve blocks. The anesthetic success rates for individual teeth ranged from 20 to 80%. There were no significant differences (P > .05) between the 2 solutions. However, the combination lidocaine/hyaluronidase solution resulted in a significant increase in postoperative pain and trismus. It was concluded that adding hyaluronidase to a buffered lidocaine solution with epinephrine did not statistically increase the incidence of pulpal anesthesia in inferior alveolar nerve blocks and, because of its potential tissue damaging effect, it should not be added to local anesthetic solutions for inferior alveolar nerve blocks.
Adjuvants, Anesthesia↗
Anesthetic efficacy of infiltrations in mandibular anterior teeth.
The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to measure the degree of anesthesia obtained with a labial infiltration of either 2% lidocaine with 1:50,000 or 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in mandibular anterior teeth. Another objective was to measure the degree of anesthesia obtained with a lingual infiltration of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in mandibular anterior teeth. Through use of a repeated-measures design, 40 subjects randomly received a labial infiltration at the lateral incisor apex of either 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:50,000 epinephrine at 2 separate appointments. An additional 40 subjects received a lingual infiltration at the lateral incisor apex of 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. The mandibular anterior teeth were blindly pulp tested at 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. No response from the subject to the maximum output (80 reading) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained. For the 3 infiltrations, success rates for the lateral incisor ranged from 43 to 50%. Adjacent teeth had success rates of 27 to 63%. There was no significant difference (P > 0.05) in success between the labial infiltration of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:50,000 epinephrine or the lingual infiltration of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine when compared with the labial infiltration of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Duration of pulpal anesthesia declined steadily for all solutions over the 60 minutes. In conclusion, the success rate of 43-50% and declining duration of pulpal anesthesia over an hour indicates that a labial infiltration of 1.8 mL of either 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 1: 50,000 epinephrine or a lingual infiltration of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine over the lateral incisor apex cannot be recommended clinically to provide profound pulpal anesthesia.
Adult↗
Anesthetic efficacy and heart rate effects of the intraosseous injection of 1.5% etidocaine (1:200,000 epinephrine) after an inferior alveolar nerve block.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy and heart rate effects of an intraosseous (IO) injection of 1.5% etidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine after an inferior alveolar nerve block. STUDY DESIGN: In a repeated-measures designed study, 48 subjects randomly received 2 combinations of injections at 2 separate appointments. The combinations were an inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block (with 3% mepivacaine) + IO injection with 1.8 mL of 1.5% etidocaine hydrochloride containing 1:200,000 epinephrine, and an IAN + mock IO injection. The first molar was blindly tested with a pulp tester at 2-minute cycles for 60 minutes after the injection. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings (no subject response) were obtained. Heart rate (pulse rate) was measured with a pulse oximeter. RESULTS: Lip numbness occurred in 100% of the subjects with both the techniques. For the first molar, anesthetic success for the IAN + mock IO and the IAN + IO etidocaine hydrochloride groups, respectively, were 81% and 100%. The differences were significant (P <.05) when the IAN + IO etidocaine hydrochloride technique was compared with the IAN + mock IO. A mean increase in heart rate of 32 beats/min occurred in 90% of the subjects with the IO injection of the etidocaine hydrochloride solution. In 89% of these subjects, the heart rate returned to within 5 beats of baseline values 4 minutes or less after solution deposition. CONCLUSIONS: The IO injection of 1.8 mL of 1.5% etidocaine hydrochloride with 1:200,000 epinephrine, when used to augment an inferior alveolar nerve block, significantly increased anesthetic success in the first molar. The majority of subjects receiving the IO injection of the etidocaine hydrochloride solution had a transient increase in heart rate.
Adult↗
Anesthetic efficacy and heart rate effects of the intraosseous injection of 3% mepivacaine after an inferior alveolar nerve block.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy and heart rate effects of an intraosseous injection of 3% mepivacaine after an inferior alveolar nerve block. STUDY DESIGN: Through use of a repeated-measures design, each of 48 subjects randomly received 2 combinations of injections at 2 separate appointments. The combinations were (1) an inferior alveolar nerve block (with 1.8 mL of 3% mepivacaine) + intraosseous injection with 1.8 mL of 3% mepivacaine and (2) an inferior alveolar nerve (with 1. 8 mL of 3% mepivacaine) + mock intraosseous injection. The first molar was blindly pulp tested at 2-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. Anesthesia was considered successful with 2 consecutive 80 readings. Heart rate (pulse rate) was measured with a pulse oximeter. RESULTS: All subjects had lip numbness with both of the inferior alveolar nerve + intraosseous techniques. Anesthetic success for the first molar was significantly increased for 30 minutes with intraosseous injection of mepivacaine in comparison with the inferior alveolar nerve block alone (mock intraosseous injection). Subjects receiving the intraosseous injection of mepivacaine experienced minimal increases in heart rate. CONCLUSIONS: The intraosseous injection of 1.8 mL of 3% mepivacaine, when used to augment an inferior alveolar nerve block, significantly increased anesthetic success for 30 minutes in the first molar. The 3% mepivacaine had a minimal effect on heart rate and would be useful in patients with contraindications to epinephrine use.
Adult↗
Effect of trephination on postoperative pain and swelling in symptomatic necrotic teeth.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, blinded study was to determine the effect of trephination on postoperative pain and swelling in symptomatic necrotic teeth. STUDY DESIGN: Fifty emergency patients participated, and each had a clinical diagnosis of a symptomatic necrotic tooth with associated periapical radiolucency. After endodontic treatment, patients randomly received either a trephination or mock trephination procedure. The trephination procedure used an intraosseous perforator to provide an initial opening in the cortical bone that was enlarged with files (No. 25 through No. 70) and an endodontic spoon. After surgery, each patient received ibuprofen; acetaminophen with codeine (30 mg); and a 7-day diary to record pain, percussion pain, swelling, and number and type of pain medication taken. RESULTS: The majority of patients with symptomatic necrotic teeth had significant postoperative pain and required analgesics to manage this pain. The use of a trephination procedure with an intraosseous perforator, files, and a spoon excavator did not significantly reduce pain, percussion pain, swelling, or the number of analgesic medications taken in symptomatic necrotic teeth with periapical radiolucencies (P >.05). CONCLUSION: We cannot recommend the routine use of a trephination procedure, as used in this study, for relief of pain in symptomatic necrotic teeth with radiolucencies.
Adult↗
Effect of systemic penicillin on pain in untreated irreversible pulpitis.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to determine the effect of penicillin on pain in untreated teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis. STUDY DESIGN: Forty emergency patients participated, and each had a clinical diagnosis of an irreversible pulpitis. Patients randomly received a 7-day oral dose (28 capsules, 500 mg each, to be taken every 6 hours) of either penicillin or a placebo control in a double-blind manner. No endodontic treatment was performed. Each patient also received ibuprofen; acetaminophen with codeine (30 mg); and a 7-day diary to record pain, percussion pain, and number and type of pain medication taken. RESULTS: The administration of penicillin did not significantly (P >.05) reduce pain, percussion pain, or the number of analgesic medications taken by patients with untreated irreversible pulpitis. The majority of patients with untreated irreversible pulpitis had significant pain and required analgesics to manage this pain. CONCLUSION: Penicillin should not be prescribed for untreated irreversible pulpitis because penicillin is ineffective for pain relief.
Adult↗
Pain reduction in untreated irreversible pulpitis using an intraosseous injection of Depo-Medrol.
The purpose of this prospective, double-blind, randomized study was to evaluate pain reduction using an intraosseous injection of slow-releasing methylprednisolone in teeth with irreversible pulpitis. Forty subjects presenting for emergency treatment completed the study. Each subject had a tooth with a clinical diagnosis of irreversible pulpitis with actively associated moderate to severe pain. After local anesthesia was attained, the subjects were randomly assigned to receive an intraosseous injection of either 1.0 ml of Depo-Medrol (40 mg) or 1.0 ml of sterile saline (control). No endodontic therapy was begun at the initial appointment. The subjects received ibuprofen and Tylenol #3 and completed a 7-day questionnaire on pain, percussion pain, and analgesic medications taken each day. Over the 7-day observation period, the subjects who received the intraosseous injection of Depo-Medrol reported significantly (p < 0.05) less pain and percussion pain while taking significantly (p < 0.05) fewer pain medications. Clinically the intraosseous injection of Depo-Medrol could be used to temporarily alleviate the symptoms of irreversible pulpitis until definitive treatment can be rendered.
Acetaminophen↗
Anesthetic efficacy of the mylohyoid nerve block and combination inferior alveolar nerve block/mylohyoid nerve block.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to measure the degree of anesthesia obtained with the mylohyoid nerve block and the combination mylohyoid nerve block/conventional inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block in mandibular teeth. STUDY DESIGN: With the use of a repeated-measures design, 30 subjects randomly received each of 3 combinations of injections at 3 separate appointments. The combinations were as follows: mylohyoid nerve block (1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine) + IAN block (3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine); mock mylohyoid nerve block + IAN block (3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine); mylohyoid nerve block (1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine) + mock IAN block. The mylohyoid injections were aided by the use of a peripheral nerve stimulator. Mandibular anterior and posterior teeth were blindly tested with a pulp tester at 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained. RESULTS: One hundred percent of the subjects had lip numbness with the mylohyoid nerve block + IAN block and mock mylohyoid nerve block + IAN block techniques. For these 2 techniques, anesthetic success rates were higher in posterior teeth (73% to 93%) than in anterior teeth (33% to 60%). There were no significant differences (P > .05) between the 2 techniques. The mylohyoid nerve block + mock IAN block technique resulted in a very low success rate (0% to 17%) and was significantly different (P < .05) from the mylohyoid nerve block + IAN block technique. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the mylohyoid nerve block does not by itself predictably provide pulpal anesthesia in mandibular teeth and does not significantly enhance pulpal anesthesia when administered in combination with the IAN block.
Adult↗
The use of ultrasound for guiding needle placement for inferior alveolar nerve blocks.
OBJECTIVE: The degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with an ultrasound-assisted inferior alveolar nerve block was compared to that obtained with a conventional inferior alveolar nerve block for mandibular teeth to determine whether needle placement assisted by ultrasound results in more successful anesthesia. STUDY DESIGN: Through use of a repeated-measures design, each of 40 subjects randomly received an ultrasound-assisted inferior alveolar nerve block and a conventional inferior alveolar nerve block at 2 separate appointments. Mandibular anterior and posterior teeth were blindly tested by means of a pulp tester at 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive readings of 80 were obtained. RESULTS: One hundred percent of the subjects had profound lip numbness with both the ultrasound-assisted inferior alveolar nerve block and the conventional inferior alveolar nerve block. For these 2 techniques, anesthetic success rates for individual teeth ranged from 38% to 92%. There were no significant differences (P > .05) between the 2 techniques. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that accurate needle placement with ultrasound for the inferior alveolar nerve block did not result in more successful pulpal anesthesia in the mandible. Therefore, accuracy of needle placement is not the primary reason for pulpal anesthetic failure with this block.
Adult↗
Anesthetic efficacy and heart rate effects of the supplemental intraosseous injection of 2% mepivacaine with 1:20,000 levonordefrin.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy and heart rate effects of a supplemental intraosseous injection of 2% mepivacaine with 1:20,000 levonordefrin. STUDY DESIGN: Through use of a repeated-measures design, 40 subjects randomly received 3 combinations of injections at 3 separate appointments. The combinations were as follows: inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block (with 3% mepivacaine) + intraosseous injection of 1.8 mL of 2% mepivacaine with 1:20,000 levonordefrin; IAN block + intraosseous injection of 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (positive control); IAN block + mock intraosseous injection (negative control). Each first molar, second molar, and second premolar was blindly tested with a pulp tester at 2-minute cycles for 60 minutes after injection. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive readings of 80 were obtained. Heart rate (pulse rate) was measured with a pulse oximeter. RESULTS: One hundred percent of the subjects had lip numbness with the IAN block + intraosseous mock technique and IAN block + intraosseous techniques. The anesthetic success rates for IAN block + mock intraosseous injection, IAN block + intraosseous lidocaine, and IAN block + intraosseous mepivacaine, respectively, were as follows: 80%, 100%, and 100% for the first molar; 90%, 100%, and 100% for the second molar; 77%, 97%, and 97% for the second premolar. For the first molar and second premolar, the differences were significant (P< .05) when the intraosseous mepivacaine and lidocaine techniques were compared with the IAN block + mock intraosseous injection. There were no significant differences between the intraosseous mepivacaine and lidocaine techniques. Eighty percent of the subjects had a mean increase in heart rate of 23-24 beats per minute with the intraosseous injection of the mepivacaine and lidocaine solutions; there were no significant differences between results with the 2 solutions. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that intraosseous injection of 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2% mepivacaine with 1:20,000 levonordefrin, used to supplement an IAN block, significantly increased anesthetic success in first molars and second premolars. The 2 solutions were equivalent with regard to intraosseous anesthetic success rate, failure rate, and heart rate increase after IAN block.
Adult↗
Cardiovascular effects of intraosseous injections of 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 3 percent mepivacaine.
BACKGROUND: Because a number of patients have reported an increase in heart rate with the intraosseous, or i.o., injection, it is important to evaluate changes in the cardiovascular system with this injection technique. The purpose of this study was to determine the cardiovascular effects of an i.o. injection of 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 3 percent mepivacaine. METHODS: With the use of a repeated-measures design, the authors randomly assigned 42 subjects to receive i.o. injections of 1.8 milliliters of 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 1.8 mL of 3 percent mepivacaine in a double-blinded manner at two appointments. At each appointment the authors monitored electrocardiographic findings, cardiac rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure before, during and after administration of anesthetic solutions. RESULTS: With the 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine solution, 28 (67 percent) of 42 subjects experienced an increase in heart rate that might be attributed to the effect of the epinephrine. In 22 (79 percent) of these subjects, the heart rate returned to within 5 beats of baseline values within four minutes after solution deposition. The authors found no significant increase in heart rate in subjects receiving the 3 percent mepivacaine. No significant differences (P > .05) were found in mean diastolic, mean systolic or mean arterial blood pressure values between the subjects receiving 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and those receiving 3 percent mepivacaine. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of subjects receiving the i.o. injection of the 2 percent lidocaine-epinephrine solution experienced a transient increase in heart rate. No significant increase in heart rate was seen with the i.o. injection of 3 percent mepivacaine. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: While patients would likely notice the heart rate increase with the lidocaine-epinephrine solution, it would not be clinically significant in most healthy patients. In patients whose medical condition, drug therapies or epinephrine sensitivity suggests caution, 3 percent mepivacaine is a good alternative for i.o. injections.
Adolescent↗
Anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental intraosseous injection of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in irreversible pulpitis.
The purpose of this study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of a supplemental intraosseous injection of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis. Fifty-one patients with symptomatic, vital maxillary, and mandibular posterior teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis received conventional infiltrations or inferior alveolar nerve blocks. Pulp testing was used to determine pulpal anesthesia after "clinically successful" injections. Patients who were positive to the pulp tests, or were negative to the pulp tests but felt pain during endodontic access, received an intraosseous injection using 1.8 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. The results demonstrated that 42% of the patients who tested negative to the pulp tests reported pain during treatment and required supplemental anesthesia. Eighty-one percent of the mandibular teeth and 12% of maxillary teeth required an intraosseous injection due to failure to gain pulpal anesthesia. Overall, the Stabident intraosseous injection was found to be 88% successful in gaining total pulpal anesthesia for endodontic therapy. We concluded that, for posterior teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis, the supplemental intraosseous injection of 2% lidocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) was successful when conventional techniques failed.
Adult↗