AIM: To compare mandibular tooth pulpal anaesthesia and reported discomfort following lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with and without supplementary articaine buccal infiltration. METHODOLOGY: In this prospective randomized double-blind cross-over study, thirty-six healthy adult volunteers received two IANB injections of 2 mL lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1 : 80,000 over two visits. At one visit, an infiltration of 2 mL of articaine 4% with epinephrine 1 : 100,000 was administered in the mucobuccal fold opposite a mandibular first molar. At the other visit, a dummy injection was performed. Injection discomfort was recorded on 100 mm visual analogue scales. Pulpal anaesthesia of first molar, premolar, and lateral incisor teeth was assessed with an electronic pulp tester until 45 min post-injection. A successful outcome was recorded in the absence of sensation on two or more consecutive maximal pulp tester stimulations. Data were analysed using McNemar and Student's t-tests. RESULTS: The IANB with supplementary articaine infiltration produced more success than IANB alone in first molars (33 volunteers vs. 20 volunteers respectively, P < 0.001), premolars (32 volunteers vs. 24 volunteers respectively, P = 0.021) and lateral incisors (28 volunteers vs. 7 volunteers respectively, P < 0.001). Buccal infiltration with articaine or dummy injection produced less discomfort than IANB injection (t = 4.1, P < 0.001; t = 3.0, P = 0.005 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The IANB injection supplemented with articaine buccal infiltration was more successful than IANB alone for pulpal anaesthesia in mandibular teeth. Articaine buccal infiltration or dummy buccal infiltration was more comfortable than IANB.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To compare mandibular tooth pulpal anaesthesia and reported discomfort following lidocaineinferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with and without supplementary articaine buccal infiltration. METHODOLOGY: In this prospective randomized double-blind cross-over study, thirty-six healthy adult volunteers received two IANB injections of 2 mL lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1 : 80,000 over two visits. At one visit, an infiltration of 2 mL of articaine 4% with epinephrine 1 : 100,000 was administered in the mucobuccal fold opposite a mandibular first molar. At the other visit, a dummy injection was performed. Injection discomfort was recorded on 100 mm visual analogue scales. Pulpal anaesthesia of first molar, premolar, and lateral incisor teeth was assessed with an electronic pulp tester until 45 min post-injection. A successful outcome was recorded in the absence of sensation on two or more consecutive maximal pulp tester stimulations. Data were analysed using McNemar and Student's t-tests. RESULTS: The IANB with supplementary articaine infiltration produced more success than IANB alone in first molars (33 volunteers vs. 20 volunteers respectively, P < 0.001), premolars (32 volunteers vs. 24 volunteers respectively, P = 0.021) and lateral incisors (28 volunteers vs. 7 volunteers respectively, P < 0.001). Buccal infiltration with articaine or dummy injection produced less discomfort than IANB injection (t = 4.1, P < 0.001; t = 3.0, P = 0.005 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The IANB injection supplemented with articaine buccal infiltration was more successful than IANB alone for pulpal anaesthesia in mandibular teeth. Articaine buccal infiltration or dummy buccal infiltration was more comfortable than IANB.