A Prospective, Randomized Single-blind Study of the Anesthetic Efficacy of Frequency-dependent Conduction Blockade of the Inferior Alveolar Nerve

2011 ◽  
Vol 37 (7) ◽  
pp. 938-942 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Hutchison ◽  
Todd Halcomb ◽  
Al Reader ◽  
Melissa Drum ◽  
John Nusstein ◽  
...  
2013 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Smith ◽  
Al Reader ◽  
Melissa Drum ◽  
John Nusstein ◽  
Mike Beck

Abstract The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blind study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of 127.2 mg lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine compared to 127.2 mg lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine plus 0.5 M mannitol in inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) blocks. Forty subjects randomly received 2 IAN blocks consisting of a 3.18 mL formulation of 127.2 mg lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine and a 5 mL formulation of 127.2 mg lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine (3.18 mL) plus 0.5 M mannitol (1.82 mL) in 2 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. Mandibular anterior and posterior teeth were blindly electric pulp tested at 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. Pain of solution deposition and postoperative pain were also measured. No response from the subject to the maximum output (80 reading) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Total percent pulpal anesthesia was defined as the total of all the times of pulpal anesthesia (80 readings) over the 60 minutes. One hundred percent of the subjects had profound lip numbness with both inferior alveolar nerve blocks. The results demonstrated that a 5 mL formulation of 127.2 mg lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine plus 0.5 M mannitol was significantly better than the 3.18 mL formulation of 127.2 mg lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine for all teeth. Solution deposition pain and postoperative pain were not statistically different between the lidocaine/mannitol formulation and the lidocaine formulation without mannitol. We concluded that adding 0.5 M mannitol to a lidocaine with epinephrine formulation was significantly more effective in achieving a greater percentage of total pulpal anesthesia than a lidocaine formulation without mannitol.


2011 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 157-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Wolf ◽  
Al Reader ◽  
Melissa Drum ◽  
John Nusstein ◽  
Mike Beck

Abstract The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blind study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of lidocaine with epinephrine compared to lidocaine with epinephrine plus 0.5 M mannitol in inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) blocks. Forty subjects randomly received an IAN block in 3 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart using the following formulations: a 1.8 mL solution of 36 mg lidocaine with 18 µg epinephrine (control solution); a 2.84 mL solution of 36 mg lidocaine with 18 µg epinephrine (1.80 mL) plus 0.5 M mannitol (1.04 mL); and a 5 mL solution of 63.6 mg lidocaine with 32 µg epinephrine (3.18 mL) plus 0.5 M mannitol (1.82 mL). Mandibular teeth were blindly electric pulp tested at 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. No response from the subject to the maximum output (80 reading) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Mean percent total pulpal anesthesia was defined as the total of all the times of pulpal anesthesia (80 readings) over the 60 minutes. Pain of solution deposition and postoperative pain were also measured. The results demonstrated that 2.84 mL of lidocaine with epinephrine plus 0.5 M mannitol was significantly better than 1.8 mL of lidocaine with epinephrine for the molars and premolars. The 5 mL of lidocaine with epinephrine plus 0.5 M mannitol was statistically better than 1.8 mL of lidocaine with epinephrine and 2.84 mL of lidocaine with epinephrine plus 0.5 M mannitol for all teeth except the central incisor. Solution deposition pain and postoperative pain were not statistically different among the mannitol formulations and the lidocaine formulation without mannitol. We concluded that adding 0.5 M mannitol to lidocaine with epinephrine formulations significantly improved effectiveness in achieving a greater percentage of total pulpal anesthesia compared with a lidocaine formulation without mannitol for IAN block.


2013 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 145-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard Cohen ◽  
Al Reader ◽  
Melissa Drum ◽  
John Nusstein ◽  
Mike Beck

Abstract The purpose of this prospective randomized, single blind study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of 68.8 mg of lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine compared to 68.8 mg lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine plus 0.9 M mannitol in inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) blocks. Forty subjects randomly received 2 IAN blocks consisting of a 1.72-mL formulation of 68.8 mg lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine and a 5-mL formulation of 68.8 mg lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine (1.72 mL) plus 0.9 M mannitol (3.28 mL) in 2 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. Mandibular anterior and posterior teeth were blindly electric pulp tested at 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. No response from the subject to the maximum output (80 reading) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Total percent pulpal anesthesia was defined as the total of all the times of pulpal anesthesia (80 readings), for each tooth, over the 60 minutes. One hundred percent of the subjects had profound lip numbness with both inferior alveolar nerve blocks. The results demonstrated that the 5 mL-formulation of 68.8 mg lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine plus 0.9 M mannitol was significantly better than the 1.72-mL formulation of 68.8 mg lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine for all teeth, except the lateral incisor. We concluded that adding 0.9 M mannitol to a lidocaine with epinephrine formulation was significantly more effective in achieving a greater percentage of total pulpal anesthesia (as defined in this study) than a lidocaine formulation without mannitol. However, the 0.9 M mannitol/lidocaine formulation would not provide 100% pulpal anesthesia for all the mandibular teeth.


1984 ◽  
Vol 51 (03) ◽  
pp. 347-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
C Cordova ◽  
A Musca ◽  
F Violi ◽  
C Alessandri ◽  
A Ghiselli ◽  
...  

SummaryThe behaviour of plasma malondialdehyde-like material (MDA-LM) was evaluated in 13 healthy subjects by a single-blind study that consisted of placebo (30 days), vitamin E treatment (300 mg/day) (30 days) and placebo (30 days). The study demonstrated that MDA-LM did not change during placebo treatment while it significantly decreased after vitamin E administration.


1976 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Borges ◽  
C Zavaleta

The effect of a new analgesic compound ( propoxyphene, acetaminophen, caffeine, hydroxyzine) was investigated in a single-blind study comparing it with plain acetaminophen administered to forty patients with tension headache. For the study, patients were assigned to one of two groups of twenty each. Starting dose for each group was one to two tablets followed by one tablet every four to six hours. The results show that 90% clinical success was obtained with the analgesic compound, while a 45% success was obtained with plain acetaminophen. This is a statistically significant difference. Side-effects observed with analgesic compound were primarily drowsiness and dizziness of mild intensity; acetaminophen caused gastro-intestinal alterations ( nausea, vomiting) and dizziness of greater severity. Therapy was withdrawn in 20% of patients taking acetaminophen because of side-effects. The dosage of analgesic compound required to control each episode of tension headache way smaller than that of acetaminophen. These results can be explained by a possible potentiation of pharmacological activity of the compound's components. It can be concluded that the analgesic compound is a new and effective combination for the symptomatic treatment of tension headache.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document