Pain assessment after application of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 during mandibular dental procedures

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (46) ◽  
pp. 76-80
Author(s):  
Adel Martínez-Martínez ◽  
Samuel Urbano del Valle ◽  
Johnatan Zambrano Trespalacios

Inferior alveolar nerve block in the mandibular technique is the blockade that presents most failures in the dental practice, so this technique is considered the less effective of those used in Dentistry and the most frustrating to the dentist. This study aimed to determine pain intensity during dental procedures after using 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 in the inferior alveolar nerve block with buccal infiltration in patients who were attended in the dental clinic of the University of Cartagena, Colombia. A clinical randomized trial was performed. The sample was of patients who required dental procedures in the jaw with local anesthesia. After standardization of the anesthetic technique, and use of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000, the inferior alveolar nerve was blocked with 0.9 mL (half cartridge) followed by buccal infiltration with 0.9 mL in the first mandibular molar. Fifty patients (30 men - 60% and 20 women - 40%), with an average age of 25.3 years old (mean ± standard deviation [SD]: 25.3 ± 6.6) were included in the study. When assessing the pain puncture and during the injection, 92% of patients classified it as mild pain according to VAS. When evaluating the latency period, the average time was less than two minutes and the perioral soft tissue anesthesia was 97%. Only a small percentage of patients required complementary anesthesia. The authors recommend the use of 4% of articaine with epinephrine in mandibular procedures that require deep pulp anesthesia, using this with a buccal infiltration.

2017 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 80-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geraldo Prisco da Silva-Junior ◽  
Liane Maciel de Almeida Souza ◽  
Francisco Carlos Groppo

In order to compare the efficacy of lidocaine and articaine for pain control during third molar surgery, 160 patients presenting bilateral asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars were selected. They received 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 during inferior alveolar nerve block. In group 1 (n = 80), an infiltrative injection of 0.9 mL of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 was performed in buccal-distal mucosa of the third molar. Group 2 (n = 80) received 0.9 mL of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 in the contralateral side. All procedures were performed at the same visit, by a single operator, in a double-blind and parallel design. The duration of each surgery and the moment when the patient expressed pain were noted. Data were analyzed by nonpaired t test and chi-square test (alpha = 5%). Duration of surgery did not differ (p = .83) between Groups 1 (19.8 ± 2.3 minutes) and 2 (19.7 ± 3.0 minutes). Pain was expressed more in group 1 (26.3%) than in group 2 (10%) (odds ratio = 3.2, p = .0138). In both groups, tooth sectioning was the most painful event (p < .0001). No influence of gender (p = .85) or age (p = .96) was observed in pain response. Buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 showed more efficacy than 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 when used in combination with inferior alveolar nerve block in controlling intraoperative pain related to impacted mandibular third molar surgery.


2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 39-47
Author(s):  
Hendry Rusdy ◽  
Abdullah Oes ◽  
Gostry Aldica Dohude ◽  
Indra Basar ◽  
Magdalena Lia Ignatita

The inferior alveolar nerve block technique (Fischer's method) is a local anesthetic technique that is often used in daily dental and surgical treatment. However, the failure rate reaches 15-20% because many factors affect the technique's success. Therefore, this descriptive study aims to determine the knowledge of clinical dental students regarding the inferior alveolar nerve block technique and the management of the failure associated with its characteristics. A cross-sectional approach was employed by using a validated questionnaire consisting of 2 parts, namely 6 general questions and 12 knowledge questions, which were distributed to 68 clinical dental students in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Sumatera Utara in 2019. The results showed that 51.5% of the students had good knowledge, 41.2% had fair knowledge and 7.4% had less knowledge. The highest percentage of students based on male gender had fair knowledge (10 people out of 15) and the female had good knowledge (30 people out of 53). The clinical dental students’ level of knowledge based on whether they have ever or never failed to perform an anesthetic block technique is in a good category. In conclusion, most of the clinical dental students at the Department of Oral Surgery in 2019 had a good level of knowledge about the inferior alveolar nerve block technique and its failure management.


2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rahul Seth ◽  
M. Anuradha ◽  
D.S. Yashavanth Kumar ◽  
Harsha V. Babji

Abstract The inferior alveolar nerve block is the most common method for obtaining mandibular anaesthesia in dental practice, but it is estimated to have a success rate of only 80 to 85%. Traditional anaesthesia of the mandibular nerve and its branches consists of deposition of anaesthetic solution in the region of the mandibular foramen. This commonly used technique eliminates all somatosensory perception of the mandible, mandibular teeth, floor of the mouth, ipsilateral tongue, and all but the lateral (buccal) gingivae. In the case of difficulty-to-anesthetize patient, the inferior alveolar nerve can be particularly challenging. In those patients, other approaches may be necessary to achieve profound anaesthesia. This article summarizes the different approaches that may be utilized in such cases. How to cite this article Anuradha M, Yashavanth Kumar DS, Harsha VB, Rahul S. Variants of inferior alveolar nerve block. CODS J Dent 2014;6;35-39


2011 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dafna Geller Palti ◽  
Cristiane Machado de Almeida ◽  
Antonio de Castro Rodrigues ◽  
Jesus Carlos Andreo ◽  
José Eduardo Oliveira Lima

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document