INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have shown higher success rates when using an articaine formulation versus a lidocaine formulation for buccal mandibular first molar infiltrations. However, there is little information on articaine's effect in mandibular anterior teeth. METHODS: The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, single-blind, crossover study comparing the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with 2 sets of mandibular lateral incisor infiltrations given in 2 separate appointments in 82 adult subjects. One set of infiltrations consisted of an initial labial infiltration of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine plus a lingual infiltration of the same anesthetic and dose. The other set of infiltrations consisted of an initial labial infiltration of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine plus a mock lingual infiltration. The authors used an electric pulp tester to test the lateral incisor for pulpal anesthesia in 2-minute cycles for 60 minutes after the injections. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The labial plus lingual infiltration significantly improved the success rate (no response to 2 consecutive 80 readings with the pulp tester) to 98% when compared with a labial infiltration of a cartridge of the same articaine formulation (76% success). The combination labial and lingual infiltrations did not provide pulpal anesthesia for an hour. Copyright 2010 American Association of Endodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have shown higher success rates when using an articaine formulation versus a lidocaine formulation for buccal mandibular first molar infiltrations. However, there is little information on articaine's effect in mandibular anterior teeth. METHODS: The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, single-blind, crossover study comparing the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with 2 sets of mandibular lateral incisor infiltrations given in 2 separate appointments in 82 adult subjects. One set of infiltrations consisted of an initial labial infiltration of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine plus a lingual infiltration of the same anesthetic and dose. The other set of infiltrations consisted of an initial labial infiltration of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine plus a mock lingual infiltration. The authors used an electric pulp tester to test the lateral incisor for pulpal anesthesia in 2-minute cycles for 60 minutes after the injections. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The labial plus lingual infiltration significantly improved the success rate (no response to 2 consecutive 80 readings with the pulp tester) to 98% when compared with a labial infiltration of a cartridge of the same articaine formulation (76% success). The combination labial and lingual infiltrations did not provide pulpal anesthesia for an hour. Copyright 2010 American Association of Endodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.