PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-8 (8)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Authors
more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Anesthetic Efficacy of a Combination of 0.5 M Mannitol Plus 127.2 mg of Lidocaine With 50 μg Epinephrine in Inferior Alveolar Nerve Blocks: A Prospective Randomized, Single-Blind Study 
Anesthesia Progress  2013;60(1):3-10.
The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blind study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of 127.2 mg lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine compared to 127.2 mg lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine plus 0.5 M mannitol in inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) blocks. Forty subjects randomly received 2 IAN blocks consisting of a 3.18 mL formulation of 127.2 mg lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine and a 5 mL formulation of 127.2 mg lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine (3.18 mL) plus 0.5 M mannitol (1.82 mL) in 2 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. Mandibular anterior and posterior teeth were blindly electric pulp tested at 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. Pain of solution deposition and postoperative pain were also measured. No response from the subject to the maximum output (80 reading) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Total percent pulpal anesthesia was defined as the total of all the times of pulpal anesthesia (80 readings) over the 60 minutes. One hundred percent of the subjects had profound lip numbness with both inferior alveolar nerve blocks. The results demonstrated that a 5 mL formulation of 127.2 mg lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine plus 0.5 M mannitol was significantly better than the 3.18 mL formulation of 127.2 mg lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine for all teeth. Solution deposition pain and postoperative pain were not statistically different between the lidocaine/mannitol formulation and the lidocaine formulation without mannitol. We concluded that adding 0.5 M mannitol to a lidocaine with epinephrine formulation was significantly more effective in achieving a greater percentage of total pulpal anesthesia than a lidocaine formulation without mannitol.
doi:10.2344/11-00040.1
PMCID: PMC3601728  PMID: 23506277
Inferior alveolar nerve block; Lidocaine; Mannitol; Epinephrine
2.  Anesthetic Efficacy of Combinations of 0.5 M Mannitol and Lidocaine With Epinephrine in Inferior Alveolar Nerve Blocks: A Prospective Randomized, Single-Blind Study 
Anesthesia Progress  2011;58(4):157-165.
The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blind study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of lidocaine with epinephrine compared to lidocaine with epinephrine plus 0.5 M mannitol in inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) blocks. Forty subjects randomly received an IAN block in 3 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart using the following formulations: a 1.8 mL solution of 36 mg lidocaine with 18 µg epinephrine (control solution); a 2.84 mL solution of 36 mg lidocaine with 18 µg epinephrine (1.80 mL) plus 0.5 M mannitol (1.04 mL); and a 5 mL solution of 63.6 mg lidocaine with 32 µg epinephrine (3.18 mL) plus 0.5 M mannitol (1.82 mL). Mandibular teeth were blindly electric pulp tested at 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. No response from the subject to the maximum output (80 reading) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Mean percent total pulpal anesthesia was defined as the total of all the times of pulpal anesthesia (80 readings) over the 60 minutes. Pain of solution deposition and postoperative pain were also measured. The results demonstrated that 2.84 mL of lidocaine with epinephrine plus 0.5 M mannitol was significantly better than 1.8 mL of lidocaine with epinephrine for the molars and premolars. The 5 mL of lidocaine with epinephrine plus 0.5 M mannitol was statistically better than 1.8 mL of lidocaine with epinephrine and 2.84 mL of lidocaine with epinephrine plus 0.5 M mannitol for all teeth except the central incisor. Solution deposition pain and postoperative pain were not statistically different among the mannitol formulations and the lidocaine formulation without mannitol. We concluded that adding 0.5 M mannitol to lidocaine with epinephrine formulations significantly improved effectiveness in achieving a greater percentage of total pulpal anesthesia compared with a lidocaine formulation without mannitol for IAN block.
doi:10.2344/11-30.1
PMCID: PMC3237325  PMID: 22168805
Inferior alveolar nerve block; Lidocaine; Mannitol
3.  A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Comparison of 2% Mepivacaine With 1 : 20,000 Levonordefrin Versus 2% Lidocaine With 1 : 100,000 Epinephrine for Maxillary Infiltrations 
Anesthesia Progress  2010;57(4):139-144.
The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind crossover study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 2% mepivacaine with 1 : 20,000 levonordefrin versus 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine in maxillary central incisors and first molars. Sixty subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, maxillary central incisor and first molar infiltrations of 1.8 mL of 2% mepivacaine with 1 : 20,000 levonordefrin and 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine at 2 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. The teeth were electric pulp tested in 2-minute cycles for a total of 60 minutes. Anesthetic success (obtaining 2 consecutive 80 readings with the electric pulp tester within 10 minutes) was not significantly different between 2% mepivacaine with 1 : 20,000 levonordefrin and 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine for the central incisor and first molar. However, neither anesthetic agent provided an hour of pulpal anesthesia.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-57.4.139
PMCID: PMC3006661  PMID: 21174567
Lidocaine; Epinephrine; Mepivacaine; Levonordefrin; Infiltration; Maxillary
4.  A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Comparison of 2% Lidocaine With 1 : 100,000 Epinephrine, 4% Prilocaine With 1 : 200,000 Epinephrine, and 4% Prilocaine for Maxillary Infiltrations 
Anesthesia Progress  2010;57(2):45-51.
Abstract
The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind crossover study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine, 4% prilocaine with 1 : 200,000 epinephrine, and 4% prilocaine in maxillary lateral incisors and first molars. Sixty subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, maxillary lateral incisor and first molar infiltrations of 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine, 1.8 mL of 4% prilocaine with 1 : 200,000 epinephrine, and 1.8 mL of 4% prilocaine, at 3 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. The teeth were pulp-tested in 3-minute cycles for a total of 60 minutes. Anesthetic success (ie, obtaining 2 consecutive 80 readings with the electric pulp tester) and onset of pulpal anesthesia were not significantly different between 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine, 4% prilocaine with 1 : 200,000 epinephrine, and 4% prilocaine for the lateral incisor and first molar. For both lateral incisor and first molar, 4% prilocaine with 1 : 200,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine were equivalent for incidence of pulpal anesthesia. However, neither anesthetic agent provided an hour of pulpal anesthesia. For both lateral incisor and first molar, 4% prilocaine provided a significantly shorter duration of pulpal anesthesia compared with 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine and 4% prilocaine with 1 : 200,000 epinephrine.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-57.2.45
PMCID: PMC2886917  PMID: 20553134
Lidocaine; Epinephrine; Prilocaine; Infiltration; Maxillary
5.  A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Study of the Anesthetic Efficacy of Sodium Bicarbonate Buffered 2% Lidocaine With 1 : 100,000 Epinephrine in Inferior Alveolar Nerve Blocks 
Anesthesia Progress  2010;57(2):59-66.
Abstract
The authors, using a crossover design, randomly administered, in a double-blind manner, inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) blocks using a buffered 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine/sodium bicarbonate formulation and an unbuffered 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine formulation at 2 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. An electric pulp tester was used in 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes to test for anesthesia of the first and second molars, premolars, and lateral and central incisors. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained within 15 minutes, and the 80 reading was continuously sustained for 60 minutes. For the buffered 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine/sodium bicarbonate formulation, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 10–71%. For the unbuffered 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine formulation, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 10–72%. No significant differences between the 2 anesthetic formulations were noted. The buffered lidocaine formulation did not statistically result in faster onset of pulpal anesthesia or less pain during injection than did the unbuffered lidocaine formulation. We concluded that buffering a 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine with sodium bicarbonate, as was formulated in the current study, did not statistically increase anesthetic success, provide faster onset, or result in less pain of injection when compared with unbuffered 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine for an IAN block.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-57.2.59
PMCID: PMC2886919  PMID: 20553136
Buffered lidocaine; Sodium bicarbonate; Inferior alveolar nerve block; Lidocaine
6.  The Efficacy of a Repeated Buccal Infiltration of Articaine in Prolonging Duration of Pulpal Anesthesia in the Mandibular First Molar 
Anesthesia Progress  2009;56(4):128-134.
Previous studies have shown declining rates of pulpal anesthesia over 60 minutes when a cartridge of 4% articaine is used with 1∶100,000 epinephrine for buccal infiltration in the mandibular first molar. The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, single-blind, crossover study comparing the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with 2 sets of mandibular first molar buccal infiltrations, given in 2 separate appointments, to 86 adult subjects: an initial infiltration of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1∶100,000 epinephrine plus a repeated infiltration of the same anesthetic and dose given 25 minutes following the initial infiltration versus an initial infiltration of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1∶100,000 epinephrine plus a mock repeated infiltration given 25 minutes following the initial infiltration. The authors used an electric pulp tester to test the first molar for anesthesia in 3-minute cycles for 112 minutes after the injections. The repeated infiltration significantly improved pulpal anesthesia from 28 minutes through 109 minutes in the mandibular first molar. A repeated infiltration of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1∶100,000 epinephrine given 25 minutes after an initial infiltration of the same type and dose of anesthetic significantly improved the duration of pulpal anesthesia, when compared with only an initial buccal infiltration, in the mandibular first molar.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-56.4.128
PMCID: PMC2796382  PMID: 20020793
Infiltration; Articaine; Mandibular; Repeated infiltration
7.  Heart Rate Effects of Intraosseous Injections Using Slow and Fast Rates of Anesthetic Solution Deposition 
Anesthesia Progress  2008;55(1):9-15.
The authors, using a crossover design, randomly administered, in a single-blind manner, 3 primary intraosseous injections to 61 subjects using: the Wand local anesthetic system at a deposition rate of 45 seconds (fast injection); the Wand local anesthetic system at a deposition rate of 4 minutes and 45 seconds (slow injection); a conventional syringe injection at a deposition rate of 4 minutes and 45 seconds (slow injection), in 3 separate appointments spaced at least 3 weeks apart. A pulse oximeter measured heart rate (pulse). The results demonstrated the mean maximum heart rate was statistically higher with the fast intraosseous injection (average 21 to 28 beats/min increase) than either of the 2 slow intraosseous injections (average 10 to 12 beats/min increase). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 slow injections. We concluded that an intraosseous injection of 1.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine with the Wand at a 45-second rate of anesthetic deposition resulted in a significantly higher heart rate when compared with a 4-minute and 45-second anesthetic solution deposition using either the Wand or traditional syringe.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006(2008)55[9:HREOII]2.0.CO;2
PMCID: PMC2268887  PMID: 18327970
Intraosseous; Heart rate; Slow and fast injections
8.  Anesthetic Efficacy Of Buccal And Lingual Infiltrations Of Lidocaine Following An Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block In Mandibular Posterior Teeth 
Anesthesia Progress  2007;54(4):163-169.
The authors, using a crossover design, randomly administered, in a single-blind manner, 3 sets of injections: an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) plus a mock buccal and a mock lingual infiltration of the mandibular first molar, an IANB plus a buccal infiltration and a mock lingual infiltration of the mandibular first molar, and an IANB plus a mock buccal infiltration and a lingual infiltration of the mandibular first molar in 3 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. An electric pulp tester was used to test for anesthesia of the premolars and molars in 3-minute cycles for 60 minutes. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained within 15 minutes following completion of the injection sets, and the 80 reading was continuously sustained for 60 minutes. For the IANB plus mock buccal infiltration and mock lingual infiltration, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 53 to 74% from the second molar to second premolar. For the IANB plus buccal infiltration and mock lingual infiltration, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 57 to 69% from the second molar to second premolar. For the IANB plus mock buccal infiltration and lingual infiltration, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 54 to 76% from the second molar to second premolar. There was no significant difference (P > .05) in anesthetic success between the IANB plus buccal or lingual infiltrations and the IANB plus mock buccal infiltration and mock lingual infiltration. We conclude that adding a buccal or lingual infiltration of 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine to an IANB did not significantly increase anesthetic success in mandibular posterior teeth.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006(2007)54[163:AEOBAL]2.0.CO;2
PMCID: PMC2213247  PMID: 18085837
Buccal infiltration; Inferior alveolar nerve block; Lidocaine; Mandibular posterior teeth

Results 1-8 (8)