Advanced search
Start date
Betweenand
Related content
(Reference retrieved automatically from Web of Science through information on FAPESP grant and its corresponding number as mentioned in the publication by the authors.)

4% articaine buccal infiltration versus 2% lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block for emergency root canal treatment in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpits: a randomized clinical study

Full text
Author(s):
Monteiro, M. R. F. P. [1] ; Groppo, F. C. [2] ; Haiter-Neto, F. [3] ; Volpato, M. C. [2] ; Almeida, J. F. A. [1]
Total Authors: 5
Affiliation:
[1] Univ Estadual Campinas, Piracicaba Dent Sch, Endodont Div, Dept Restorat Dent, Piracicaba, SP - Brazil
[2] Univ Estadual Campinas, Piracicaba Dent Sch, Div Pharmacol, Dept Physiol Sci, Piracicaba, SP - Brazil
[3] Univ Estadual Campinas, Piracicaba Dent Sch, Div Radiol, Dept Oral Diag, Piracicaba, SP - Brazil
Total Affiliations: 3
Document type: Journal article
Source: International Endodontic Journal; v. 48, n. 2, p. 145-152, FEB 2015.
Web of Science Citations: 22
Abstract

AimTo compare the anaesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) with 1.8mL of 2% lidocaine (LI) to a buccal infiltration (BI) with 1.8mL of 4% articaine (AR), both with 1:100000 epinephrine, in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpits in a randomized controlled trial. MethodologyVolunteers presenting at the Emergency Centre (FOP-UNICAMP) were randomly divided into two groups (30 for AR and 20 for LI). Operator and patient were not blinded. Success was recorded when complete pain-free treatment was achieved after a single injection (IANB or BI) or when one supplemental injection was needed for emergency endodontic procedures. Success rate of supplemental injection was evaluated between and within groups using Fisher's exact test and chi-square test. ResultsA higher success rate (P=0.03/Fisher's exact test) was observed with AR (40%) than with LI (10%). No significant difference was found when a single injection plus one supplemental injection was compared between groups (P=1.0; AR=70%; LI=80%). However, supplemental injection increased the anaesthetic success rates (AR, P=0.04; LI, P=0.0001) within groups. ConclusionsSingle anaesthesia techniques (IANB or BI) were not able to achieve pain-free emergency endodontic treatment. Supplemental anaesthetic techniques should be considered prior to treatment procedures in order to increase success rate (consort: registration number - NCT01912755/Fapesp: \#2009/10834-4). (AU)

FAPESP's process: 09/10438-8 - Anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine in buccal infiltration of mandibular posterior teeth with pulpits
Grantee:José Flávio Affonso de Almeida
Support Opportunities: Regular Research Grants