Cargando…

Anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration versus intraligamentary injection in mandibular first and second molars with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND: To compare the anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration (BI) (1.7 ml) versus intraligamentary (IL) injection containing 0.4 ml of 4% articaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine after an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 1.7 ml 2% lidocaine in the first and second mandibul...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zargar, Nazanin, Shojaeian, Shiva, Vatankhah, Mohammadreza, Heidaryan, Shirin, Ashraf, Hengameh, Akbarzadeh Baghban, Alireza, Dianat, Omid
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Dental Society of Anesthsiology 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9536943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36246036
http://dx.doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2022.22.5.339
_version_ 1784803086462615552
author Zargar, Nazanin
Shojaeian, Shiva
Vatankhah, Mohammadreza
Heidaryan, Shirin
Ashraf, Hengameh
Akbarzadeh Baghban, Alireza
Dianat, Omid
author_facet Zargar, Nazanin
Shojaeian, Shiva
Vatankhah, Mohammadreza
Heidaryan, Shirin
Ashraf, Hengameh
Akbarzadeh Baghban, Alireza
Dianat, Omid
author_sort Zargar, Nazanin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To compare the anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration (BI) (1.7 ml) versus intraligamentary (IL) injection containing 0.4 ml of 4% articaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine after an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 1.7 ml 2% lidocaine in the first and second mandibular molars diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis (IP). METHODS: One hundred subjects diagnosed with IP of either the mandibular first (n = 50) or second molars (n = 50) and failed profound anesthesia following an IANB were selected. They randomly received either the IL or BI techniques of anesthesia. Pain scores on a 170 mm Heft-Parker visual analog scale were recorded initially, before, and during supplemental injections. Furthermore, pulse rate was measured before and after each supplemental injection. During the access cavity preparation and initial filing, no or mild pain was assumed to indicate anesthetic success. The chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U test, and independent samples t-test were used for the analyses. RESULTS: The overall success rates were 80% in the IL group and 74% in the BI group, with no significant difference (P = 0.63). In the first molars, there was no significant difference between the two techniques (P = 0.088). In the second molars, IL injection resulted in a significantly higher success rate (P = 0.017) than BI. IL injection was statistically more successful (P = 0.034) in the second molars (92%) than in the first molars (68%). However, BI was significantly more successful (P = 0.047) in the first molars (88%) than in the second molars (64%). The mean pulse rate increase was significantly higher in the IL group than in the BI group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both the IL and BI techniques were advantageous when used as supplemental injections. However, more favorable outcomes were observed when the second molars received IL injection and the first molars received BI.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9536943
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher The Korean Dental Society of Anesthsiology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95369432022-10-13 Anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration versus intraligamentary injection in mandibular first and second molars with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized clinical trial Zargar, Nazanin Shojaeian, Shiva Vatankhah, Mohammadreza Heidaryan, Shirin Ashraf, Hengameh Akbarzadeh Baghban, Alireza Dianat, Omid J Dent Anesth Pain Med Original Article BACKGROUND: To compare the anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration (BI) (1.7 ml) versus intraligamentary (IL) injection containing 0.4 ml of 4% articaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine after an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 1.7 ml 2% lidocaine in the first and second mandibular molars diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis (IP). METHODS: One hundred subjects diagnosed with IP of either the mandibular first (n = 50) or second molars (n = 50) and failed profound anesthesia following an IANB were selected. They randomly received either the IL or BI techniques of anesthesia. Pain scores on a 170 mm Heft-Parker visual analog scale were recorded initially, before, and during supplemental injections. Furthermore, pulse rate was measured before and after each supplemental injection. During the access cavity preparation and initial filing, no or mild pain was assumed to indicate anesthetic success. The chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U test, and independent samples t-test were used for the analyses. RESULTS: The overall success rates were 80% in the IL group and 74% in the BI group, with no significant difference (P = 0.63). In the first molars, there was no significant difference between the two techniques (P = 0.088). In the second molars, IL injection resulted in a significantly higher success rate (P = 0.017) than BI. IL injection was statistically more successful (P = 0.034) in the second molars (92%) than in the first molars (68%). However, BI was significantly more successful (P = 0.047) in the first molars (88%) than in the second molars (64%). The mean pulse rate increase was significantly higher in the IL group than in the BI group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both the IL and BI techniques were advantageous when used as supplemental injections. However, more favorable outcomes were observed when the second molars received IL injection and the first molars received BI. The Korean Dental Society of Anesthsiology 2022-10 2022-09-27 /pmc/articles/PMC9536943/ /pubmed/36246036 http://dx.doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2022.22.5.339 Text en Copyright © 2022 Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Zargar, Nazanin
Shojaeian, Shiva
Vatankhah, Mohammadreza
Heidaryan, Shirin
Ashraf, Hengameh
Akbarzadeh Baghban, Alireza
Dianat, Omid
Anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration versus intraligamentary injection in mandibular first and second molars with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized clinical trial
title Anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration versus intraligamentary injection in mandibular first and second molars with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized clinical trial
title_full Anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration versus intraligamentary injection in mandibular first and second molars with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized clinical trial
title_fullStr Anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration versus intraligamentary injection in mandibular first and second molars with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed Anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration versus intraligamentary injection in mandibular first and second molars with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized clinical trial
title_short Anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration versus intraligamentary injection in mandibular first and second molars with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized clinical trial
title_sort anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal infiltration versus intraligamentary injection in mandibular first and second molars with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized clinical trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9536943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36246036
http://dx.doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2022.22.5.339
work_keys_str_mv AT zargarnazanin anestheticefficacyofsupplementalbuccalinfiltrationversusintraligamentaryinjectioninmandibularfirstandsecondmolarswithirreversiblepulpitisaprospectiverandomizedclinicaltrial
AT shojaeianshiva anestheticefficacyofsupplementalbuccalinfiltrationversusintraligamentaryinjectioninmandibularfirstandsecondmolarswithirreversiblepulpitisaprospectiverandomizedclinicaltrial
AT vatankhahmohammadreza anestheticefficacyofsupplementalbuccalinfiltrationversusintraligamentaryinjectioninmandibularfirstandsecondmolarswithirreversiblepulpitisaprospectiverandomizedclinicaltrial
AT heidaryanshirin anestheticefficacyofsupplementalbuccalinfiltrationversusintraligamentaryinjectioninmandibularfirstandsecondmolarswithirreversiblepulpitisaprospectiverandomizedclinicaltrial
AT ashrafhengameh anestheticefficacyofsupplementalbuccalinfiltrationversusintraligamentaryinjectioninmandibularfirstandsecondmolarswithirreversiblepulpitisaprospectiverandomizedclinicaltrial
AT akbarzadehbaghbanalireza anestheticefficacyofsupplementalbuccalinfiltrationversusintraligamentaryinjectioninmandibularfirstandsecondmolarswithirreversiblepulpitisaprospectiverandomizedclinicaltrial
AT dianatomid anestheticefficacyofsupplementalbuccalinfiltrationversusintraligamentaryinjectioninmandibularfirstandsecondmolarswithirreversiblepulpitisaprospectiverandomizedclinicaltrial