Articaine Versus Lidocaine Concentration in the Palatal Tissues After Supraperiosteal Buccal Infiltration Anesthesia

2018 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 315.e1-315.e7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haytham Al-Mahalawy ◽  
Hatem Abuohashish ◽  
Shahanas Chathoth ◽  
Naif Al-Masoud ◽  
Badr Al-Jandan
Keyword(s):  
Lidocaine Concentration ◽  
Buccal Infiltration ◽  
Infiltration Anesthesia

scholarly journals Effect of Injection Pressure of Infiltration Anesthesia to the Jawbone

2016 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 131-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenji Yoshida ◽  
Eri Tanaka ◽  
Hiroyoshi Kawaai ◽  
Shinya Yamazaki
Keyword(s):  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
White Male ◽  
Injection Pressure ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Time Intervals ◽  
Lidocaine Concentration ◽  
The Mean ◽  
High Concentrations ◽  
Infiltration Anesthesia ◽  
Local Anesthetic Infiltration

To obtain effective infiltration anesthesia in the jawbone, high concentrations of local anesthetic are needed. However, to reduce pain experienced by patients during local anesthetic administration, low-pressure injection is recommended for subperiosteal infiltration anesthesia. Currently, there are no studies regarding the effect of injection pressure on infiltration anesthesia, and a standard injection pressure has not been clearly determined. Hence, the effect of injection pressure of subperiosteal infiltration anesthesia on local anesthetic infiltration to the jawbone was considered by directly measuring lidocaine concentration in the jawbone. Japanese white male rabbits were used as test animals. After inducing general anesthesia with oxygen and sevoflurane, cannulation to the femoral artery was performed and arterial pressure was continuously recorded. Subperiosteal infiltration anesthesia was performed by injecting 0.5 mL of 2% lidocaine containing 1/80,000 adrenaline, and injection pressure was monitored by a pressure transducer for 40 seconds. After specified time intervals (10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 minutes), jawbone and blood samples were collected, and the concentration of lidocaine at each time interval was measured. The mean injection pressure was divided into 4 groups (100 ± 50 mm Hg, 200 ± 50 mm Hg, 300 ± 50 mm Hg, and 400 ± 50 mm Hg), and comparison statistical analysis between these 4 groups was performed. No significant change in blood pressure during infiltration anesthesia was observed in any of the 4 groups. Lidocaine concentration in the blood and jawbone were highest 10 minutes after the infiltration anesthesia in all 4 groups and decreased thereafter. Lidocaine concentration in the jawbone increased as injection pressure increased, while serum lidocaine concentration was significantly lower. This suggests that when injection pressure of subperiosteal infiltration anesthesia is low, infiltration of local anesthetic to the jawbone may be reduced, while transfer to oral mucosa and blood may be increased.

Articaine and Lidocaine Mandibular Buccal Infiltration Anesthesia: A Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Cross-Over Study

2006 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 296-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Dib Kanaa ◽  
John Martin Whitworth ◽  
Ian Porter Corbett ◽  
John Gerard Meechan
Keyword(s):  
Double Blind ◽  
Buccal Infiltration ◽  
Infiltration Anesthesia

The Effect of Maxillary First Molar Root Length on the Success Rate of Buccal Infiltration Anesthesia

2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (10) ◽  
pp. 1462-1466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ehsan Moradi Askari ◽  
Masoud Parirokh ◽  
Nouzar Nakhaee ◽  
Hamid Reza Hosseini ◽  
Paul V. Abbott
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Root Length ◽  
Buccal Infiltration ◽  
Infiltration Anesthesia

scholarly journals Comparison of Depth of Anesthesia in Different Parts of Maxilla When Only Buccal Anesthesia Was Done for Maxillary Teeth Extraction

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kubilay Isik ◽  
Abdullah Kalayci ◽  
Ercan Durmus
Keyword(s):  
Rating Scale ◽  
Numerical Rating Scale ◽  
Depth Of Anesthesia ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Numerical Rating ◽  
Anesthetic Solution ◽  
Teeth Extraction ◽  
Buccal Infiltration ◽  
Infiltration Anesthesia ◽  
Different Parts

Objective. Recently, some authors reported that maxillary teeth could be extracted without using palatal anesthesia, but they did not clearly specify the extracted teeth. This is important, because apparently the local anesthetic solution infiltrates the maxilla and achieves a sufficient anesthesia in the palatal side. Thus, thickness of the bone may affect the depth of anesthesia. The aim of this study was to compare the depth of anesthesia in different parts of the maxilla when only a buccal infiltration anesthesia was done.Patients and Method. The maxilla was divided into anterior, premolar, and molar regions. In each region, 15 teeth were extracted with a single buccal infiltration. The patient marked the pain level on a numerical rating scale.Results. Anesthesia depth was sufficient and was not significantly different () among three maxillary regions.Conclusion. Except for surgical interventions, all maxillary teeth can be extracted using only a buccal infiltration anesthesia.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Lignocaine in Gel and Spray form during Buccal Infiltration Anesthesia in Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 750-754 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anshul Sharma ◽  
BS Suprabha
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Permanent Teeth ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Topical Anesthetic ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Spray Form ◽  
Buccal Infiltration ◽  
Infiltration Anesthesia

ABSTRACT Aim To compare the efficacy of 15% lignocaine spray and 8% lignocaine gel as a topical anesthetic, in reducing pain, during buccal infiltration in children. Materials and methods Forty-two patients aged between 7 and 12 years requiring restorative procedures/extraction/pulp therapy of primary/ permanent teeth in the maxillary arch, under buccal infiltration anesthesia were selected for the study. The participants were randomly allocated into 2 groups of 21 each. In group A, 8% lignocaine gel and in group B, 15% lignocaine spray was applied prior to buccal infiltration. Pain was assessed using Wong-Baker faces pain rating scale (WBFPRS) and faces legs activity cry and consolability (FLACC) painscale. Results Pearson's chi-square test revealed that there was no significant difference in the FLACC scores of the two groups (p = 0.54). Independent t-test demonstrated that there was no significant difference in Wong-Bakers faces pain score between the two agents (p = 0.07). Conclusion There is no significant difference in the efficacy of 15% lignocaine spray and 8% lignocaine gel as a topical anesthetic in controlling pain during buccal infiltration anesthesia, in children. How to cite this article Sharma A, Suprabha BS, Shenoy R, Rao A. Efficacy of Lignocaine in Gel and Spray form during Buccal Infiltration Anesthesia in Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014;15(6):750-754.

scholarly journals Lidocaine Concentration in Mandibular Bone After Subperiosteal Infiltration Anesthesia Decreases With Elevation of Periosteal Flap and Irrigation With Saline

2014 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 53-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sachie Ogawa ◽  
Masahiro Watanabe ◽  
Hiroyoshi Kawaai ◽  
Hitoshi Tada ◽  
Shinya Yamazaki
Keyword(s):  
High Performance ◽  
Fixed Time ◽  
Saline Irrigation ◽  
Mandibular Bone ◽  
Periosteal Flap ◽  
Lidocaine Concentration ◽  
Mandibular Body ◽  
Surgical Conditions ◽  
The Right ◽  
Infiltration Anesthesia

Abstract It has been reported that the action of infiltration anesthesia on the jawbone is attenuated significantly by elevation of the periosteal flap with saline irrigation in clinical studies; however, the reason is unclear. Therefore, the lidocaine concentration in mandibular bone after subperiosteal infiltration anesthesia was measured under several surgical conditions. The subjects were 48 rabbits. Infiltration anesthesia by 0.5 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1 : 80,000 epinephrine (adrenaline) was injected into the right mandibular angle and left mandibular body, respectively. Under several surgical conditions (presence or absence of periosteal flap, and presence or absence of saline irrigation), both mandibular bone samples were removed at a fixed time after subperiosteal infiltration anesthesia. The lidocaine concentration in each mandibular bone sample was measured by high-performance liquid chromatography. As a result, elevation of the periosteal flap with saline irrigation significantly decreased the lidocaine concentration in the mandibular bone. It is suggested that the anesthetic in the bone was washed out by saline irrigation. Therefore, supplemental conduction and/or general anesthesia should be utilized for long operations that include elevation of the periosteal flap with saline irrigation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document