Journal of Endodontics
Volume 30, Issue 8 , Pages 568-571, August 2004

Anesthetic Efficacy of Articaine for Inferior Alveolar Nerve Blocks in Patients with Irreversible Pulpitis

Dr. Claffey is a former graduate student in endodontics, The Ohio State University. She is currently in private practice limited to endodontics, Grove City, OH. Dr. Reader is professor and program director of graduate endodontics, Dr. Nusstein is assistant professor, graduate endodontics, Dr. Beck is associate professor, Department of Oral Biology, Dr Weaver is professor and program director of anesthesiology, Department of Oral Surgery, Oral Pathology, and Anesthesiology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine to 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients experiencing irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth. Seventy-two emergency patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis of a mandibular posterior tooth randomly received, in a double-blind manner, 2.2 ml of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2.2 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine using a conventional inferior alveolar nerve block. Endodontic access was begun 15 min after solution deposition, and all patients were required to have profound lip numbness. Success was defined as none or mild pain (Visual Analogue Scale recordings) on endodontic access or initial instrumentation. The success rate for the inferior alveolar nerve block using articaine was 24% and for the lidocaine solution success was 23%. There was no significant difference (p = 0.89) between the articaine and lidocaine solutions. Neither solution resulted in an acceptable rate of anesthetic success in patients with irreversible pulpitis.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 20.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supported by research funding from the Graduate Student Research Fund, Graduate Endodontics, The Ohio State University.Presented at the 61st Annual Session of the American Association of Endodontists, Anaheim, CA.Adapted from a thesis submitted by Dr. Elizabeth Claffey in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the MS degree at The Ohio State University.Address requests for reprints to Dr. Al Reader, Department of Endodontics, College of Dentistry, 305 West 12th Avenue, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43218. e-mail: reader.2@osu.edu

PII: S0099-2399(05)60237-3

doi:10.1097/01.DON.0000125317.21892.8F

Journal of Endodontics
Volume 30, Issue 8 , Pages 568-571, August 2004