PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-16 (16)
 

Clipboard (0)
None
Journals
Authors
more »
Year of Publication
more »
Document Types
jtitle_s:("anesti Prog")
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
9.  The Effects of a 2-Stage Injection Technique on Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Injection Pain 
Anesthesia Progress  2006;53(4):126-130.
The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blinded, crossover study was to compare the pain of a traditional 1-stage inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block injection to a 2-stage IAN block technique. Using a crossover design, 51 subjects randomly received, in a single-blinded manner, either the traditional IAN block or the 2-stage IAN block in 2 appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. For the 2-stage injection, the needle was inserted submucosally and 0.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine was slowly given over 1 minute. After 5 minutes, the needle was reinserted and advanced to the target site (needle placement), and 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine was deposited. For the traditional IAN block, following needle penetration, the needle was advanced while depositing 0.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine (needle placement) and then 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine was deposited at the target site. A Heft-Parker visual analogue scale was used to measure the pain of needle insertion, needle placement, and anesthetic solution deposition. There were no significant differences, as analyzed by Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test, between needle insertion and solution deposition for the 2 techniques in men or women. However, there was significantly less pain with the 2-stage injection for needle placement in women. In conclusion, the 2-stage injection significantly reduced the pain of needle placement for women when compared to the traditional IAN technique.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006(2006)53[126:TEOASI]2.0.CO;2
PMCID: PMC1705832  PMID: 17177591
Injection pain; Inferior alveolar nerve block; Lidocaine
10.  Anesthetic Efficacy of Lidocaine/Meperidine for Inferior Alveolar Nerve Blocks 
Anesthesia Progress  2006;53(4):131-139.
The authors, using a crossover design, randomly administered, in a single-blind manner, inferior alveolar nerve blocks using 36 mg of lidocaine with 18 μg of epinephrine or a combination of 36 mg of lidocaine with 18 μg epinephrine plus 36 mg meperidine with 18 μg of epinephrine, at 2 separate appointments, to 52 subjects. An electric pulp tester was used to test for anesthesia, in 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes, of the molars, premolars, and central and lateral 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. Using the lidocaine solution, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 8 to 58% from the central incisor to the second molar. Using the lidocaine/meperidine solution, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 0 to 17%. There was a significant difference (P < .05) between the lidocaine and lidocaine/meperidine solutions for the lateral incisors through the second molars. We conclude that the addition of meperidine to a standard lidocaine solution does not increase the success of the inferior alveolar nerve block.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006(2006)53[131:AEOMFI]2.0.CO;2
PMCID: PMC1705828  PMID: 17177592
Meperidine; Inferior alveolar nerve block; Lidocaine
11.  Comparison of injection pain, heart rate increase, and postinjection pain of articaine and lidocaine in a primary intraligamentary injection administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system. 
Anesthesia Progress  2004;51(4):126-133.
The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the pain of injection, heart rate increase, and postinjection pain of the intraligamentary injection of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system. Using a crossover design, intraligamentary injections of 1.4 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 1.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine were randomly administered on the mesial and distal aspects of the mandibular first molar with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system in a double-blind manner at 2 separate appointments to 51 subjects. The results demonstrated the incidence of moderate pain was 14%-27% with needle insertion, with 0%-4% reporting severe pain. For solution deposition, moderate pain was reported 8%-18% of the time, with no reports of severe pain. There were no significant differences between the articaine and lidocaine solutions. Regarding heart rate changes, neither anesthetic solution resulted in a significant increase in heart rate over baseline readings. On day 1 postinjection, there was a 31% incidence of moderate/severe pain with the articaine solution and 20% incidence of moderate/severe pain with the lidocaine solution. The moderate/severe pain ratings decreased over the next 2 days. There were no significant differences between the articaine and lidocaine solutions. We concluded that the intraligamentary injection of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was similar to 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for injection pain and postinjection pain in the mandibular first molar when administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system. For both anesthetic solutions, heart rate did not significantly increase with the intraligamentary injection using the computer-controlled local anesthetic system.
PMCID: PMC2007494  PMID: 15675261
12.  Anesthetic efficacy of the anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) injection. 
Anesthesia Progress  2004;51(3):80-89.
The purpose of this prospective, randomized, blinded study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of the anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) injection using the computer-assisted Wand Plus injection system versus a conventional syringe. The authors, using a crossover design, randomly administered in a blind manner 2 AMSA injections utilizing the computer-assisted injection system and a conventional syringe to 40 subjects during 2 separate appointments. A pulp tester was used to test for anesthesia, in 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes, of the central and lateral incisors, canine, and first and second premolars. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive no responses (80 readings) with the pulp tester were obtained. For all teeth, except the central incisor, the use of the computer-assisted injection system was significantly (P < .05) more likely to result in pulpal anesthesia than the use of the conventional syringe technique. For the computer-assisted injection system, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 35 to 58%, and for the conventional syringe, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 20 to 42%. For both techniques, the onset of pulpal anesthesia was slow, and duration of pulpal anesthesia declined steadily over 60 minutes. We conclude that although the AMSA injection using the computer-assisted injection system was more successful than the conventional syringe technique, the rather modest to low success rates, slow onset, and declining duration of pulpal anesthesia over 60 minutes would not ensure predictable pulpal anesthesia from the second premolar to the central incisor.
PMCID: PMC2007480  PMID: 15497297
13.  A comparison of injection pain and postoperative pain of two intraosseous anesthetic techniques. 
Anesthesia Progress  2003;50(3):111-120.
The purpose of this prospective, randomized, blinded study was to compare injection pain and postoperative pain of an apical primary X-Tip intraosseous technique to a coronal primary Stabident intraosseous technique in mandibular first molars. Using a repeated-measures design, 41 subjects randomly received 2 primary intraosseous injections at 2 separate appointments. Using a site distal to the mandibular first molar for both injections, the subjects received 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1: 100,000 epinephrine administered with the X-Tip system using an apical location in alveolar mucosa or 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1: 100,000 epinephrine administered with the Stabident system using a coronal location in attached gingiva. The pain of infiltration, perforation, needle insertion, solution deposition, mock or actual guide sleeve removal and postoperative pain were recorded on a Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (VAS) scale for the 2 intraosseous systems. The results demonstrated that the apical primary X-Tip intraosseous technique was not statistically different (P > .05) from the coronal primary Stabident technique regarding pain ratings of infiltration, perforation, needle insertion, solution deposition, mock or actual guide sleeve removal and postoperative pain (at the time subjective anesthesia wore off). However, on postoperative days 1 through 3, significantly (P < .05) more males experienced postoperative pain with the X-Tip system than with the Stabident system.
Images
PMCID: PMC2007441  PMID: 14558586
14.  Anesthetic efficacy of an infiltration in mandibular anterior teeth following an inferior alveolar nerve block. 
Anesthesia Progress  2002;49(2):49-55.
The purpose of this prospective, randomized, blinded study was to measure the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with an inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block followed by an infiltration in mandibular anterior teeth. Through use of a repeated-measures design, 40 patients randomly received 3 injection combinations at 3 separate appointments: an IAN block followed by a mock lingual infiltration and a mock labial infiltration, an IAN block followed by a mock lingual infiltration and a labial infiltration, and an IAN block followed by a mock labial infiltration and a lingual infiltration. Each IAN block used 3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, and each infiltration used 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine administered over the lateral incisor apex. Mandibular anterior teeth were blindly pulp tested at 2-minute cycles for 60 minutes following the IAN-infiltration injections. No response from the patient to the maximum output (80 reading) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained within 15 minutes and the 80 reading was sustained for 60 minutes. Anesthesia was considered a failure if 2 consecutive 80 readings were not obtained during the 60 minutes. The results of this study showed that 100% of the patients had lip numbness with all IAN blocks. For the lateral incisor, the success rate of the IAN block alone was 40% and the failure rate was 30%. For the IAN block plus labial infiltration, the success rate was 62% and the failure rate was 12% for the lateral incisor. There was a significant difference (P < .05) between the IAN block alone and the IAN block plus labial infiltration. In conclusion, a labial infiltration, over the lateral incisor apex, of 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine following an IAN block significantly improved pulpal anesthesia for the lateral incisor compared with the IAN block alone.
PMCID: PMC2007388  PMID: 15384292
15.  An Evaluation of 4% Prilocaine with 1:200,000 Epinephrine and 2% Mepivacaine with 1:20,000 Levonordefrin Compared with 2% Lidocaine with 1:100,000 Epinephrine for Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block 
Anesthesia Progress  1991;38(3):84-89.
The purpose of this study was to measure the degree of anesthesia obtained with 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 2% mepivacaine with 1:20,000 levonordefrin compared with 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve block. Using a repeated measures design, 30 subjects randomly received an inferior alveolar injection using masked cartridges of each solution at three successive appointments. The first molar, first premolar, lateral incisor, and contralateral canine (control) were blindly tested with an Analytic Technology pulp tester at 3-min cycles for 50 min. Anesthetic success was defined as no subject response to the maximum output of the pulp tester (80 reading) within 16 min and maintenance of this reading for the remainder of the testing period.
Although subjects felt numb subjectively, anesthetic success as defined here occurred in 46% to 57% of the molars, in 50% to 57% of the premolars, and in 21% to 36% of the lateral incisors. No statistically significant differences in onset, success, failure, or incidence were found among the solutions. We conclude that the three preparations are equivalent for inferior alveolar nerve block of 50-min duration.
PMCID: PMC2161976  PMID: 1814249
16.  A Comparison of the Periodontal Ligament Injection Using 2% Lidocaine with 1:100,000 Epinephrine and Saline in Human Mandibular Premolars 
Anesthesia Progress  1987;34(5):181-186.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate, with the electric pulp tester, the anesthetic efficacy of the periodontal ligament injection using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and saline in human mandibular premolars. The periodontal ligament injection using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was found to be an effective technique for anesthetizing mandibular first premolars. However, the duration of profound pulpal anesthesia was approximately 10 minutes. The periodontal ligament injection using sterile saline was not an effective technique for anesthesia. Teeth mesial and distal to the injected tooth may also become anesthetized with this injection technique. The initial needle penetration and injection of the anesthetic solution in clinically healthy teeth were only mildly discomforting. No increase in tooth mobility was observed 45 minutes after the periodontal ligament injection. No clinically observable pulpal or periodontal damage was seen at 3 weeks after the injection.
PMCID: PMC2148545  PMID: 3479918

Results 1-16 (16)