Dexmedetomidine Dose Dependently Enhances the Local Anesthetic Action of Lidocaine in Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 348-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kentaro Ouchi ◽  
Kazuna Sugiyama
Keyword(s):  
Nerve Block ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block ◽  
Anesthetic Action

scholarly journals Comparison of infiltration (INF) and inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) injection techniques in bilateral therapeutic removal of mandibular premolars

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 269-272
Author(s):  
Balamurugan Rajendran ◽  
Sahana Pushpa Thaneraj
Keyword(s):  
Nerve Block ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Pain Assessment ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve ◽  
Anesthetic Technique ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block ◽  
Drug Injection ◽  
Anesthetic Drug ◽  
Anesthetic Effect ◽  
Injection Techniques

Background. The present study aimed to evaluate and compare the anesthetic effect of infiltration (INF) and inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) techniques for bilateral therapeutic extraction of mandibular premolars. Methods. One hundred patients requiring bilateral therapeutic removal of mandibular premolars were included in the study. For the extraction of the mandibular right premolar tooth, INF was used, and after one week, the mandibular left premolar tooth was extracted using the IANB. The effect of anesthesia between the two techniques was compared and evaluated by ANOVA using SPSS. Results. INF was successful in 78% of cases, whereas IANB was successful only in 22% of cases. Furthermore, INF had a significantly better anesthetic effect than IANB (P<0.05). During pain assessment during the anesthetic drug injection and the procedure, two patients in the INF and five patients in the IANB group reported minimal pain during extraction (P>0.05). The onset of the anesthetic effect was faster in the INF group, while the duration of the effect was longer in the IANB group. Conclusion. INF was a more efficacious local anesthetic technique with high success rate than the IANB technique.

scholarly journals Onset and Duration Period of Pulpal Anesthesia of Articaine and Lidocaine in Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 371-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabel Peixoto Tortamano ◽  
Marcelo Siviero ◽  
Sara Lee ◽  
Roberta Moura Sampaio ◽  
Jose Leonardo Simone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nerve Block ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mean Time ◽  
Pulpal Anesthesia

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double blind study was to compare the onset and duration periods of pulpal anesthesia using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). Thirty subjects received 1.8 mL of each of the three local anesthetic solutions in IANB. Onset and duration periods of pulpal anesthesia were determined using electric pulp stimulation. The mean time of onset of pulpal anesthesia was 8.7, 7.4 and 7.7 min and the mean duration of pulpal anesthesia was 61.8, 106.6 and 88.0 min for 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, respectively. For onset, there was only a significant difference between 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (p=0.037). For duration, there was significant difference for all the local anesthetic solutions (p≤0.05). In conclusion, 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine exhibited faster onset and also had longest duration of pulpal anesthesia in IANB.

scholarly journals Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Injection Pain Using a Computer-Controlled Local Anesthetic Device (CCLAD): A Prospective, Randomized Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 231-236
Author(s):  
Sara Fowler ◽  
Chase Crowley ◽  
Melissa Drum ◽  
Al Reader ◽  
John Nusstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nerve Block ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Supine Position ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve ◽  
Needle Insertion ◽  
Injection Pain ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block ◽  
Needle Placement ◽  
Solution Deposition ◽  
Computer Controlled

There is evidence that the Computer-Controlled Local Anesthetic Device (CCLAD) decreases the pain of oral injections. The purpose of this study was to evaluate injection pain of the inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) using the CCLAD in an upright position versus a supine position. Additionally, we evaluated solution deposition pain with the CCLAD when compared to previous studies using a traditional syringe. One hundred ten asymptomatic subjects were randomly given IANBs using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine while in an upright sitting position and supine position, at 2 different appointments, spaced at least 2 weeks apart. Each subject rated the pain for needle insertion, needle placement, and solution deposition on a Heft-Parker visual analogue scale. Pain ratings were compared between the upright and supine positions using a repeated-measures analysis of variance with post hoc testing using the Tukey-Kramer procedure. Moderate to severe pain was reported by 10% to 13% of the patients for needle insertion, 74% to 75% for full needle placement, and 8% to 10% for solution deposition. There was no significant difference between groups for phases of the injection. When comparing the injection phases within the groups, the needle placement phase of the injection was statistically more painful than both the needle insertion phase and solution deposition phase (p = .0001). Using the CCLAD, IANB injection pain of the supine and upright positions was not statistically different. Needle placement was the most painful phase of the injection. Solution deposition pain was less with the CCLAD when compared to other studies of the IANB using a traditional syringe.

scholarly journals RCT on the effectiveness of the intraligamentary anesthesia and inferior alveolar nerve block on pain during dental treatment

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bahaa R. Youssef ◽  
Andreas Söhnel ◽  
Alexander Welk ◽  
Mohamed H. Abudrya ◽  
Mohamed Baider ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Nerve Block ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Dental Treatment ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve ◽  
Numeric Rating Scale ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Mandibular Posterior Teeth ◽  
Numeric Rating

Abstract Objective To compare the effectiveness and complications of intraligamentary anesthesia (ILA) with conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) during injection and dental treatment of mandibular posterior teeth. Materials and methods In this randomized, prospective clinical trial, 72 patients (39 males, 33 females), scheduled for dental treatment of mandibular posterior teeth, were randomly allocated to ILA group (n = 35) received ILA injection or IANB group (n = 37) received the conventional IANB. Our primary outcome was to assess pain and stress (discomfort) during the injection and dental treatment, using the numeric rating scale (NRS) from 0 to 10 (0 = no pain, 10= the worst pain imaginable), whereas recording 24-h postoperative complications was our secondary outcomes. Results Patients in ILA group reported significantly less pain during injection when compared with IANB group (p = 0.03), while pain during dental treatment was similar in both groups (p = 0.2). Patients in both groups also reported similar law values of discomfort during treatment (p = 0.7). Although no signs of nerve contact or any other postoperative complications were observed, five patients in IANB group (none in ILA group) reported temporary irritations. Conclusion This study showed equivalent effectiveness of both intraligamentary anesthesia and conventional inferior alveolar nerve block, for pain control during routine dental treatment of mandibular posterior teeth. Nevertheless, ILA showed significantly less pain during injection. No major postoperative complications in both groups were observed. Clinical relevance ILA could be considered as an effective alternative for routine dental treatment. Trial registration NCT04563351

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document