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

BACKGROUND: Incorrect administration of an anesthetic during local anesthesia is one of the most important causes of pain symptoms in patients scheduled for dental procedures. The current study assessed the severity of damage to periodontal tissue following different rates of anesthetic administration. METHODS: The research was conducted on 50 outbred male rats with a body mass of 180–240 g. The anesthetic used was 1% articaine. RESULTS: The results showed that administration of the anesthetic at a rapid pace caused structural damage to the periodontal tissue. Further, signs of impaired microcirculation were noted at all rates of administration. Biochemical studies demonstrated changes in the level of glucose and enzymes with the rapid introduction of the anesthetic, indicating severe systemic stress response of the body. CONCLUSIONS: Injection of local anesthetic at any rate of introduction induces vascular congestion in the microcirculatory bloodstream and exudative reactions. Rapid introduction of an anesthetic causes progression of structural changes in the gingival tissue.
Anesthesia, Local ; Animals ; Carticaine ; Dentistry ; Estrogens, Conjugated (USP) ; Glucose ; Humans ; Male ; Microcirculation ; Mouth Mucosa ; Rats

Mandibular third molar extraction is commonly performed in dental clinics. However, the optimal method of anesthesia has not been established for this procedure. The conventional inferior alveolar nerve block is the most widely used method. However, its success rate is not high and it may lead to complications, such as aspiration and nerve injury. Therefore, various anesthesia methods are being investigated. Articaine has been proven to be efficacious in a number of studies and is being used with increasing frequency in clinical practice. In this review article, we will briefly review various local anesthesia techniques, anesthetics, and a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery (CCLAD) system, which reduces pain by controlling the speed of drug injection, for mandibular third molar extraction.
Anesthesia ; Anesthesia, Local ; Anesthetics ; Carticaine ; Dental Clinics ; Mandible ; Mandibular Nerve ; Methods ; Molar, Third

BACKGROUND: There are many techniques of inferior alveolar nerve block injection (IANBI); one among them is the computer-assisted intraosseous injection (CAIOI). Here we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of CAIOI with Quicksleeper® in mandibular third molar surgery. METHODS: This study is a clinical, single-blind, randomized, split-mouth, controlled trial including 25 patients (10 males and 15 females, mean age 21 years). The patients underwent surgical removal of bilateral mandibular third molars with two different IANBI techniques. One side was injected using Quicksleeper®, and the other side was injected using a conventional IANBI. Both techniques used one cartridge (1.7 ml) of 1:100,000 epinephrine 4% articaine. A supplementary injection was used if necessary. All volumes of anesthetic agent used were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using paired t-test and Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: This research showed that CAIOI has faster onset and shorter duration of action than IANBI (P < 0.05). The pain was similar in both techniques. In the CAIOI group, one-third of the cases could be completed without additional anesthesia. The remaining two-thirds required minimal supplementary volume of anesthesia. The success rates were 68% for CAIOI and 72% for IANBI, respectively. CONCLUSION: CAIOI is an advantageous anesthetic technique. It can be used as an alternative to conventional IANBI for mandibular third molar surgery.
Anesthesia ; Carticaine ; Epinephrine ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Mandible ; Mandibular Nerve ; Molar, Third

BACKGROUND: This prospective, randomized, double-blind, clinical study was conducted to compare the effects of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (A100) and 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine (A200) on the vital signs and onset and duration of anesthesia in an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). METHODS: In the first appointment, an IANB was performed by injecting A100 or A200 in 1 side of the mouth (right or left) randomly in patients referred for extraction of both their first mandibular molars. In the second appointment, the protocol was repeated and the other anesthetic solution was injected in the side that had not received the block in the previous session. Systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP) and pulse rate were measured during and 5 min after the injection. The onset and duration of anesthesia were also evaluated. Data were analyzed using t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test, and p-value was set at 0.05. RESULTS: SBP and pulse rate changes were slightly more with A100; however, DBP changes were more with A200, although the differences were not significant (P > 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the parameters evaluated in this study. The onset and duration of anesthesia, and the changes in SBP, DBP, and pulse rate during and 5 min after the injection were the same in both the groups. CONCLUSIONS: For an IANB, A200 and A100 were equally efficient and successful in producing the block. Epinephrine concentration did not influence the effects of 4% articaine.
Anesthesia* ; Anesthetics, Local ; Carticaine* ; Clinical Study ; Epinephrine* ; Heart Rate ; Humans ; Mandibular Nerve* ; Molar ; Mouth ; Prospective Studies ; Vital Signs*

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the pain perception and anesthetic efficacy of 2% lignocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, buffered lignocaine, and 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine for the inferior alveolar nerve block. METHODS: This was a double-blind crossover study involving 48 children aged 5–10 years, who received three inferior alveolar nerve block injections in three appointments scheduled one week apart from the next. Pain on injection was assessed using the Wong-Baker Faces pain scale and the sound eye motor scale (SEM). Efficacy of anesthesia was assessed by subjective (tingling or numbness of the lip, tongue, and corner of mouth) and objective signs (pain on probing). RESULTS: Pain perception on injection assessed with Wong-Baker scale was significantly different between buffered lignocaine and lignocaine (P < 0.001) and between buffered lignocaine and articaine (P = 0.041). The onset of anesthesia was lowest for buffered lignocaine, with a statistically significant difference between buffered lignocaine and lignocaine (P < 0.001). Moreover, the efficacy of local analgesia assessed using objective signs was significantly different between buffered lignocaine and lignocaine (P < 0.001) and between lignocaine and articaine. CONCLUSION: Buffered lignocaine was the least painful and the most efficacious anesthetic agent during the inferior alveolar nerve block injection in 5–10-year-old patients.
Analgesia ; Anesthesia ; Appointments and Schedules ; Buffers ; Carticaine ; Child ; Cross-Over Studies ; Epinephrine ; Humans ; Hypesthesia ; Lidocaine ; Lip ; Mandibular Nerve ; Pain Perception ; Tongue

BACKGROUND: No study has compared lidocaine with articaine, each at a concentration of 4% and combined with epinephrine. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 4% lidocaine with that of 4% articaine, with a concentration of 1:100,000 epinephrine added to each, in an inferior alveolar nerve block for surgery on impacted lower third molars. METHOD: This study was conducted at the Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University in Bangkok, Thailand. The randomized, single-blind, comparative split-mouth study was carried out in patients with symmetrically impacted lower third molars, as identified on panoramic radiographs. Each patient underwent surgery for the removal of the lower third molars by the same surgeon under local anesthesia at two separate visits, 3 weeks apart. The onset and duration of local anesthesia, intra-operative pain, surgical duration, and number of additional anesthetics administered were recorded. RESULTS: The subjective and objective onset of action for the local anesthetics showed statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). However, the intra-operative pain, surgical duration, duration of local anesthesia, and number of additional anesthetics administered did not show statistically significant differences. CONCLUSION: The use of 4% articaine for the inferior alveolar nerve block was clinically more effective in the onset of subjective and objective anesthesia as compared with the use of 4% lidocaine. Based on the pain scores from the visual analogue scale, 4% lidocaine provided more analgesia during the procedure, and patients noted less intra-operative pain than with 4% articaine; however, the difference was not clinically significant.
Analgesia ; Anesthesia ; Anesthesia, Local ; Anesthetics ; Anesthetics, Local ; Carticaine* ; Dentistry ; Epinephrine ; Humans ; Lidocaine* ; Mandibular Nerve* ; Methods ; Molar, Third* ; Nerve Block ; Thailand ; Visual Analog Scale

OBJECTIVEThis study was to test the feasibility of permanent maxillary tooth removal using articaine without a second palatal injection.

METHODSOf 104 patients, 38 patients had bilateral extraction and 66 patients had unilateral extraction of maxillary tooth. In the test group, 1.7 mL articaine with 1:100000 epinephrine was injected into the buccal vestibule of the tooth and the tooth were extracted after 5 minutes. In the control group, the patients were subjected to both palatal injection with 2% lidocaine hydrochloride and buccal injection with articaine. All patients completed visual analog scales (VAS) after extraction.

RESULTSThe achievement ratio of permanent maxillary tooth anesthesia of test group was 96.2%. The achievement ratio of permanent maxillary tooth anesthesia of control group was 97.1%. There was no statistical significance between achievement ratio of test group and control group(P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONPermanent maxillary tooth removal without palatal injection is possible by articaine injection to the buccal vestibule of the tooth.

Adult ; Anesthesia ; Anesthesia, Dental ; Anesthesia, Local ; Anesthetics, Local ; Carticaine ; Dentition, Permanent ; Epinephrine ; Humans ; Injections ; Lidocaine ; Male ; Maxilla ; Middle Aged ; Pain Measurement ; Tooth Extraction

BACKGROUND: People with the Ehlers-Danlos Syndromes (EDS), a group of heritable disorders of connective tissue, often report experiencing dental procedure pain despite local anesthetic (LA) use. Clinicians have been uncertain how to interpret this apparent LA resistance, as comparison of EDS and non-EDS patient experience is limited to anecdotal evidence and small case series. The primary goal of this hypothesis-generating study was to investigate the recalled adequacy of pain prevention with LA administered during dental procedures in a large cohort of people with and without EDS. A secondary exploratory aim asked people with EDS to recall comparative LA experiences. METHODS: We administered an online survey through various social media platforms to people with EDS and their friends without EDS, asking about past dental procedures, LA exposures, and the adequacy of procedure pain prevention. Among EDS respondents who both received LA and recalled the specific LA used, we compared agent-specific pain prevention for lidocaine, procaine, bupivacaine, mepivacaine, and articaine. RESULTS: Among the 980 EDS respondents who had undergone a dental procedure LA, 88% (n = 860) recalled inadequate pain prevention. Among 249 non EDS respondents only 33% (n = 83) recalled inadequate pain prevention (P < 0.001 compared to EDS respondents). The agent with the highest EDS-respondent reported success rate was articaine (30%), followed by bupivacaine (25%), and mepivacaine (22%). CONCLUSIONS: EDS survey respondents reported nearly three times the rate of LA non-response compared to non-EDS respondents, suggesting that LAs were less effective in preventing their pain associated with routine office dental procedures.
Anesthesia, Local ; Anesthetics, Local ; Bupivacaine ; Carticaine ; Cohort Studies ; Connective Tissue ; Dental Care ; Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome ; Friends ; Humans ; Lidocaine ; Mepivacaine ; Procaine ; Social Media ; Surveys and Questionnaires

BACKGROUND: Local anesthetics alone or in combination with adjuncts, such as oral medications, have routinely been used for pain control during endodontic treatment. The best clinical choice amongst the vast numbers of agents and techniques available for pain control for irreversible pulpitis is unclear. This network meta-analysis combined the available evidence on agents and techniques for pulpal anesthesia in the maxilla and mandible, in order to identify the best amongst these approaches statistically, as a basis for future clinical trials.METHODS: Randomized trials in MEDLINE, DARE, and COCHRANE databases were screened based on inclusion criteria and data were extracted. Heterogeneity was assessed and odds ratios were used to estimate effects. Inconsistencies between direct and indirect pooled estimates were evaluated by H-statistics. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation working group approach was used to assess evidence quality.RESULTS: Sixty-two studies (nine studies in the maxilla and 53 studies in the mandible) were included in the meta-analysis. Increased mandibular pulpal anesthesia success was observed on premedication with aceclofenac + paracetamol or supplemental 4% articaine buccal infiltration or ibuprofen+paracetamol premedication, all the above mentioned with 2% lignocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). No significant difference was noted for any of the agents investigated in terms of the success rate of maxillary pulpal anesthesia.CONCLUSION: Direct and indirect comparisons indicated that some combinations of IANB with premedication and/or supplemental infiltration had a greater chance of producing successful mandibular pulpal anesthesia. No ideal technique for maxillary anesthesia emerged. Randomized clinical trials with increased sample size may be needed to provide more conclusive data. Our findings suggest that further high-quality studies are required in order to provide definitive direction to clinicians regarding the best agents and techniques to use for mandibular and maxillary anesthesia for irreversible pulpitis.
Acetaminophen ; Anesthesia ; Anesthetics, Local ; Carticaine ; Lidocaine ; Mandible ; Mandibular Nerve ; Maxilla ; Odds Ratio ; Population Characteristics ; Premedication ; Pulpitis ; Root Canal Therapy ; Sample Size