Efficacy of the TuttleNumbNow anesthesia protocol for mandibular first molars: a retrospective study
10.17245/jdapm.2026.26.2.133
- Author:
Gregory K. TUTTLE
;
Carter K. NEWELL
;
LaDawn BOUCHER
;
Jill TAYLOR
;
Jared J. TUTTLE
- Publication Type:Original Article
- From:Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
2026;26(2):133-141
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Background:Inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) is the standard anesthetic approach for mandibular first molars;however, it has well-documented limitations, including variable success rates, delayed onset, higher anesthetic dose requirements, and potential complications. The TuttleNumbNow (TNN) anesthesia protocol introduces intraosseous (IO) injections as the primary anesthetic modality, followed by infiltration and IANB as a last resort. This approach seeks to provide rapid site-specific anesthesia at reduced pharmacological doses. This study evaluated the clinical efficacy of the TNN protocol for mandibular first molar procedures in a private practice setting.
Methods:This retrospective observational study reviewed patient records from Tuttle Family Dental (Orem, Utah, USA) between January and December 2023. Eligible cases included patients undergoing composite restorations, crown preparations, or crown seating on the mandibular first molars, where anesthesia was administered according to the TNN protocol. Data were extracted from Eaglesoft electronic dental records and categorized as follows:no anesthetic, single-agent TNN (articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 or mepivacaine 3% without epinephrine), dual-agent TNN, or conversion to IANB. Descriptive statistics summarized the anesthetic regimens, and Fisher’s exact test assessed the association between procedure type and IANB conversion.
Results:In total, 184 cases (74 composites, 57 crown preparations, and 53 crown seats) were included. One-quarter of the procedures (47; 24.9%) required no local anesthesia. Of the 137 cases requiring anesthesia, 88 (64.2%) were managed with a single agent, 41 (29.9%) with dual agents, and 8 (5.8%) required an IANB. Overall, 129 of the 137 cases (94.2%) were successfully completed without IANB. The need for IANB was significantly associated with procedure type (P = 0.0008), occurring most frequently during crown preparations (7 of 57 cases, 12.3%).
Conclusion:The TNN anesthesia protocol achieved profound anesthesia in 94.2% of mandibular first molar cases without requiring IANB, demonstrating its effectiveness as a primary anesthetic strategy. Compared with traditional IANB, the TNN approach offers rapid-onset, site-specific anesthesia while reducing patient anesthetic exposure and postoperative complications. These findings support reframing IO anesthesia from a secondary “rescue” technique to an effective first-line modality. Prospective multicenter studies are warranted to validate its efficacy in broader patient populations.
