Vivek Aggarwal1, Mamta Singla2, Sanjay Miglani3, Sarita Kohli3. 1. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Jamia Millia Islamia, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi, India. Electronic address: drvivekaggarwal@gmail.com. 2. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, SGT Dental College, Gurgaon, Haryana, India. 3. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Jamia Millia Islamia, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi, India.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The present study comparatively evaluated the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine given as supplemental intraligamentary injections after a failed inferior alveolar nerve block. METHODS:One hundred six adult patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in a mandibular first or second molar received aninitial inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine. Pain during the endodontic treatment was assessed using the Heft-Parker visual analog scale. Eighty-two patients with unsuccessful anesthesia were randomly allocated to 2 treatment groups: 1 group received 0.6 mL/root of supplementary intraligamentary injection of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, and the second group received 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine. Endodontic treatment was reinitiated. Success after the primary injection or supplementary injection was defined as no or mild pain (less than 55 mm on the Heft-Parker visual analog scale) during access preparation and root canal instrumentation. Patients' heart rate was monitored using a finger pulse oximeter. The anesthetic success rates were analyzed with the Pearson chi-square test at 5% significance levels. The heart rate changes were analyzed using the t test. RESULTS: The patients receiving supplementary intraligamentary injections of 4% articaine had a success rate of 66%, whereas 2% lidocaine injections were successful in 78% of cases. The difference was statistically nonsignificant (χ2 = 1.51, P = .2). There was no significant effect of the different anesthetic agents on the heart rate. CONCLUSIONS: Both 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine improved the success rates after a failed primary anesthetic injection, with no significant difference between them.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: The present study comparatively evaluated the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine given as supplemental intraligamentary injections after a failed inferior alveolar nerve block. METHODS: One hundred six adult patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in a mandibular first or second molar received an initial inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine. Pain during the endodontic treatment was assessed using the Heft-Parker visual analog scale. Eighty-two patients with unsuccessful anesthesia were randomly allocated to 2 treatment groups: 1 group received 0.6 mL/root of supplementary intraligamentary injection of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, and the second group received 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine. Endodontic treatment was reinitiated. Success after the primary injection or supplementary injection was defined as no or mild pain (less than 55 mm on the Heft-Parker visual analog scale) during access preparation and root canal instrumentation. Patients' heart rate was monitored using a finger pulse oximeter. The anesthetic success rates were analyzed with the Pearson chi-square test at 5% significance levels. The heart rate changes were analyzed using the t test. RESULTS: The patients receiving supplementary intraligamentary injections of 4% articaine had a success rate of 66%, whereas 2% lidocaine injections were successful in 78% of cases. The difference was statistically nonsignificant (χ2 = 1.51, P = .2). There was no significant effect of the different anesthetic agents on the heart rate. CONCLUSIONS: Both 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine improved the success rates after a failed primary anesthetic injection, with no significant difference between them.