AIM: The aim of this audit was to evaluate the efficacy, when used by the author, of the intra-septal local anaesthetic technique for cavity preparation in mandibular molar and premolar teeth. METHODS: One hundred and thirteen consecutive patients who required local anaesthesia (LA) for cavity preparation in lower molar and premolar teeth in a general dental practice took part in the audit sample. Articaine 4%, with 1:100,000 adrenaline (epinephrine), was administered using the intra-septal technique. Visual analogue scales (VAS) were used to record pain experienced on injection and the quality of anaesthesia obtained. Any side-effects reported were recorded. The standards set were that at least 70% should find the administration of the LA pain-free and that at least 80% should experience no pain during cavity preparation. RESULTS: Sixty-nine (62%) patients reported the injection technique to be completely pain-free and a further 23 (20%) reported very minor pain on injection. Eighty (71%) patients reported pain-free treatment and 18 (16%) experienced very minor pain during treatment. No side-effects were reported. Patients aged under 40 years and those who had cavities prepared in first premolar teeth appeared more likely to experience pain during cavity preparation. CONCLUSION: The intra-septal injection technique requires no specialist equipment, is easily administered, rapid in onset and provides a level of anaesthesia equivalent to that produced by an inferior dental nerve block and with fewer side-effects. The injection is relatively painless to administer.
AIM: The aim of this audit was to evaluate the efficacy, when used by the author, of the intra-septal local anaesthetic technique for cavity preparation in mandibular molar and premolar teeth. METHODS: One hundred and thirteen consecutive patients who required local anaesthesia (LA) for cavity preparation in lower molar and premolar teeth in a general dental practice took part in the audit sample. Articaine 4%, with 1:100,000 adrenaline (epinephrine), was administered using the intra-septal technique. Visual analogue scales (VAS) were used to record pain experienced on injection and the quality of anaesthesia obtained. Any side-effects reported were recorded. The standards set were that at least 70% should find the administration of the LA pain-free and that at least 80% should experience no pain during cavity preparation. RESULTS: Sixty-nine (62%) patients reported the injection technique to be completely pain-free and a further 23 (20%) reported very minor pain on injection. Eighty (71%) patients reported pain-free treatment and 18 (16%) experienced very minor pain during treatment. No side-effects were reported. Patients aged under 40 years and those who had cavities prepared in first premolar teeth appeared more likely to experience pain during cavity preparation. CONCLUSION: The intra-septal injection technique requires no specialist equipment, is easily administered, rapid in onset and provides a level of anaesthesia equivalent to that produced by an inferior dental nerve block and with fewer side-effects. The injection is relatively painless to administer.