BACKGROUND: The authors studied the hemodynamic effect influent by using the novel high concentration of lidocaine HCl for surgical removal impacted lower third molar. The objective of this study was to evaluate the hemodynamic change when using different concentrations of lidocaine in impacted lower third molar surgery. METHODS: Split mouth single blind study comprising 31 healthy patients with a mean age of 23 years (range 19-33 years). Subjects had symmetrically impacted lower third molars as observed on panoramic radiograph. Each participant required 2 surgical interventions by the same surgeon with a 3-week washout period washout period. The participants were alternately assigned one of two types of local anesthetic (left or right) for the first surgery, then the other type of anesthetic for the second surgery. One solution was 4% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and the other was 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. A standard IANB with 1.8 ml volume was used. Any requirement for additional anesthetic and patient pain intra-operation was recorded. Post-operatively, patient was instructed to fill in the patient report form for any adverse effect and local anesthetic preference in terms of intra-operative pain. This form was collected at the seven day follow up appointment. RESULTS: In the 4% lidocaine group, the heart rate increased during the first minute post-injection (P < 0.05). However, there was no significant change in arterial blood pressure during the operation. In the 2% lidocaine group, there was a significant increase in arterial blood pressure and heart rate in the first minute following injection for every procedure. When the hemodynamic changes in each group were compared, the 4% lidocaine group had significantly lower arterial blood pressure compared to the 2% lidocaine group following injection. Post-operatively, no adverse effects were observed by the operator and patient in either local anesthetic group. Patients reported less pain intra-operation in the 4% lidocaine group compared with the 2% lidocaine group (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that a 4% concentration of lidocaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine has better clinical efficacy than 2% lidocaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine when used for surgical extraction of lower third molars. Neither drug had any clinical adverse effects.
Arterial Pressure ; Epinephrine ; Follow-Up Studies ; Heart Rate ; Hemodynamics* ; Humans ; Lidocaine* ; Molar, Third* ; Mouth ; Single-Blind Method ; Treatment Outcome

BACKGROUND: The authors studied the hemodynamic effect influent by using the novel high concentration of lidocaine HCl for surgical removal impacted lower third molar. The objective of this study was to evaluate the hemodynamic change when using different concentrations of lidocaine in impacted lower third molar surgery. METHODS: Split mouth single blind study comprising 31 healthy patients with a mean age of 23 years (range 19-33 years). Subjects had symmetrically impacted lower third molars as observed on panoramic radiograph. Each participant required 2 surgical interventions by the same surgeon with a 3-week washout period washout period. The participants were alternately assigned one of two types of local anesthetic (left or right) for the first surgery, then the other type of anesthetic for the second surgery. One solution was 4% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and the other was 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. A standard IANB with 1.8 ml volume was used. Any requirement for additional anesthetic and patient pain intra-operation was recorded. Post-operatively, patient was instructed to fill in the patient report form for any adverse effect and local anesthetic preference in terms of intra-operative pain. This form was collected at the seven day follow up appointment. RESULTS: In the 4% lidocaine group, the heart rate increased during the first minute post-injection (P < 0.05). However, there was no significant change in arterial blood pressure during the operation. In the 2% lidocaine group, there was a significant increase in arterial blood pressure and heart rate in the first minute following injection for every procedure. When the hemodynamic changes in each group were compared, the 4% lidocaine group had significantly lower arterial blood pressure compared to the 2% lidocaine group following injection. Post-operatively, no adverse effects were observed by the operator and patient in either local anesthetic group. Patients reported less pain intra-operation in the 4% lidocaine group compared with the 2% lidocaine group (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that a 4% concentration of lidocaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine has better clinical efficacy than 2% lidocaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine when used for surgical extraction of lower third molars. Neither drug had any clinical adverse effects.
Arterial Pressure ; Epinephrine ; Follow-Up Studies ; Heart Rate ; Hemodynamics* ; Humans ; Lidocaine* ; Molar, Third* ; Mouth ; Single-Blind Method ; Treatment Outcome

BACKGROUND: There have been few studies on the effect of an elevated concentration of lidocaine hydrochloride in the surgical removal of an impacted lower third molar. This study aimed to examine the efficacy of 4% lidocaine along with 1:100,000 epinephrine compared to 2% lidocaine along with 1:100,000 epinephrine as inferior alveolar nerve block for the removal of an impacted lower third molar. METHODS: This single-blind study involved 31 healthy patients (mean age: 23 y; range: 19-33 y) with symmetrically impacted lower third molars as observed on panoramic radiographs. Volunteers required 2 surgical interventions by the same surgeon with a 3-week washout period. The volunteers were assigned either 4% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as local anesthetic during each operation. RESULTS: We recorded the time of administration, need for additional anesthetic administration, total volume of anesthetic used. We found that the patient's preference for either of the 2 types of local anesthetic were significantly different (P < 0.05). However, the extent of pulpal anesthesia, surgical duration, and duration of soft tissue anesthesia were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggested that inferior alveolar nerve block using 4% lidocaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a local anesthetic was clinically more effective than that using 2% lidocaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine; the surgical duration was not affected, and no clinically adverse effects were encountered.
Anesthesia ; Epinephrine ; Humans ; Lidocaine* ; Mandibular Nerve ; Molar, Third* ; Single-Blind Method ; Volunteers

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

Objectives: Palatal infiltration is the most painful and uncomfortable anesthesia technique for maxillary impacted third molar surgery (MITMS). This approach could cause patients distress and aversion to dental treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of a buccal infiltration injection without a palatal injection in MITMS. Materials and Methods: This prospective research study was a crossover split mouth-randomized controlled trial. Twenty-eight healthy symmetrical bilateral MITMS patients (mean age, 23 years) were randomly assigned to two groups. Buccal infiltration injections without palatal injections were designated as the study group and the buccal with palatal infiltration cases were the control group, using 4% articaine and 1:100,000 epinephrine. The operation started after 10 minutes of infiltration. Pain assessment was done using a visual analogue scale and a numeric rating scale after each injection and extraction procedure. Similarly, the success rate, hemodynamic parameters, and additional requested local anesthetic were assessed. Results: The results showed that the pain associated with local anesthetic injections between both groups were significantly different. However, the success rates between the groups were not significantly different. Postoperative pain was not significant between both groups and a few patients requested an additional local anesthetic, but the results were not statistically significant. For hemodynamic parameters, there was a significant difference in systolic pressure during incision, bone removal, and tooth elevation. In comparison, during the incision stage there was a significant difference in diastolic pressure; however, other steps in the intervention were not significantly different between groups. Conclusion We concluded that buccal infiltration injection without palatal injection can be an alternative technique instead of the conventional injection for MITMS.