Vivek Aggarwal1, Mamta Singla2, Masoud Saatchi3, Mukesh Hasija1. 1. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India. 2. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, SGT Dental College, Gurgaon, Haryana, India. 3. Professor of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Abstract
Introduction: The present study evaluated the anaesthetic efficacy of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine vs. 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 given as supplemental intraligamentary injections after a failed inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. The effect of these solutions on the heart rate was also evaluated. Methods: One-hundred-eighteen adult patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpits in a mandibular first or second molar, received an initial IANB with 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine. Pain during the endodontic treatment was assessed using a visual analogue scale (Heft-Parker VAS). Eighty-eight patients with unsuccessful anaesthesia were randomly allocated to one of the two treatment groups: one group received 0.6 mL/root of supplementary intraligamentary injection of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine; while the second group received 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine. Endodontic treatment was re-initiated. Success after primary injection or supplementary injection was defined as no or mild pain (pain score ≤54 mm on HP VAS) during access preparation and root canal instrumentation. Heart rate was monitored using a finger pulse oximeter. The anaesthetic 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 anaesthetic success rate in patients receiving supplementary intraligamentary injections in 1:80,000 epinephrine group was 82%, while the intraligamentary injections with 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine were successful in 57% of cases. The difference was statistically significant (χ2=6.4, p = .011). There was no significant effect of both the anaesthetic agents on the mean heart rate.Conclusions: Both 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine improved the success rates after a failed primary anaesthetic injection. The 1:80,000 epinephrine group was significantly more successful.
RCT Entities:
Introduction: The present study evaluated the anaesthetic efficacy of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine vs. 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 given as supplemental intraligamentary injections after a failed inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. The effect of these solutions on the heart rate was also evaluated. Methods: One-hundred-eighteen adult patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpits in a mandibular first or second molar, received an initial IANB with 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine. Pain during the endodontic treatment was assessed using a visual analogue scale (Heft-Parker VAS). Eighty-eight patients with unsuccessful anaesthesia were randomly allocated to one of the two treatment groups: one group received 0.6 mL/root of supplementary intraligamentary injection of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine; while the second group received 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine. Endodontic treatment was re-initiated. Success after primary injection or supplementary injection was defined as no or mild pain (pain score ≤54 mm on HP VAS) during access preparation and root canal instrumentation. Heart rate was monitored using a finger pulse oximeter. The anaesthetic 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 anaesthetic success rate in patients receiving supplementary intraligamentary injections in 1:80,000 epinephrine group was 82%, while the intraligamentary injections with 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine were successful in 57% of cases. The difference was statistically significant (χ2=6.4, p = .011). There was no significant effect of both the anaesthetic agents on the mean heart rate.Conclusions: Both 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine improved the success rates after a failed primary anaesthetic injection. The 1:80,000 epinephrine group was significantly more successful.