Anesthetic efficacy of buffered 4% articaine for mandibular first molar infiltration: a crossover clinical trial.

Kalliopi Manta, Nikolaos Dabarakis, Theodoros Lillis, Ioannis Fotopoulos
{"title":"Anesthetic efficacy of buffered 4% articaine for mandibular first molar infiltration: a crossover clinical trial.","authors":"Kalliopi Manta,&nbsp;Nikolaos Dabarakis,&nbsp;Theodoros Lillis,&nbsp;Ioannis Fotopoulos","doi":"10.17245/jdapm.2023.23.3.135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The limited studies on the effect of buffering on the clinical efficacy of articaine have reported controversial results. The purpose of this study was to clinically compare the pain of injection, anesthetic success, onset, and duration of pulpal anesthesia of buffered 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 versus a non-buffered 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 formulation for buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty-three volunteers were enrolled in the study. All volunteers received two injections consisting of a single mandibular first molar buccal infiltration with 1.8 ml of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 and 1.8 ml of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 buffered with 8.4% sodium bicarbonate. The infiltrations were applied in two separate appointments spaced at least one week apart. After injection of the anesthetic solution at the examined site, the first molar was pulp-tested every 2 min for the next 60 min.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Successful pulpal anesthesia was recorded in 69.8% of cases using non-buffered articaine solution and 76.2% of cases using buffered articaine solution, with no significant difference between the formulations (P = 0.219). The mean time of anesthesia onset for the volunteers with successful anesthetic outcome in both formulations (n = 43) was 6.6 ± 1.6 min for the non-buffered articaine solution and 4.5 ± 1.6 min for the buffered solution, which differed significantly (P = 0.001). In the same volunteers, the mean duration of pulpal anesthesia was 28.4 ± 7.1 min for non-buffered articaine solution and 30.2 ± 8.5 min for buffered articaine solution, with no significant difference between the formulations (P = 0.231). Considering the pain of injection, regardless of the anesthetic success, the mean values of VAS were 11.3 ± 8.2 mm for the non-buffered articaine solution and 7.8 ±6.5 mm for the buffered articaine solution, which differed significantly (P = 0.001 < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>According to the present study, 4% articaine with epinephrine can benefit from buffering and provide better anesthetic behavior, with improved onset and less pain during injection.</p>","PeriodicalId":15634,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":"23 3","pages":"135-141"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b8/d0/jdapm-23-135.PMC10260355.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2023.23.3.135","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The limited studies on the effect of buffering on the clinical efficacy of articaine have reported controversial results. The purpose of this study was to clinically compare the pain of injection, anesthetic success, onset, and duration of pulpal anesthesia of buffered 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 versus a non-buffered 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 formulation for buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar.

Methods: Sixty-three volunteers were enrolled in the study. All volunteers received two injections consisting of a single mandibular first molar buccal infiltration with 1.8 ml of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 and 1.8 ml of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 buffered with 8.4% sodium bicarbonate. The infiltrations were applied in two separate appointments spaced at least one week apart. After injection of the anesthetic solution at the examined site, the first molar was pulp-tested every 2 min for the next 60 min.

Results: Successful pulpal anesthesia was recorded in 69.8% of cases using non-buffered articaine solution and 76.2% of cases using buffered articaine solution, with no significant difference between the formulations (P = 0.219). The mean time of anesthesia onset for the volunteers with successful anesthetic outcome in both formulations (n = 43) was 6.6 ± 1.6 min for the non-buffered articaine solution and 4.5 ± 1.6 min for the buffered solution, which differed significantly (P = 0.001). In the same volunteers, the mean duration of pulpal anesthesia was 28.4 ± 7.1 min for non-buffered articaine solution and 30.2 ± 8.5 min for buffered articaine solution, with no significant difference between the formulations (P = 0.231). Considering the pain of injection, regardless of the anesthetic success, the mean values of VAS were 11.3 ± 8.2 mm for the non-buffered articaine solution and 7.8 ±6.5 mm for the buffered articaine solution, which differed significantly (P = 0.001 < 0.05).

Conclusion: According to the present study, 4% articaine with epinephrine can benefit from buffering and provide better anesthetic behavior, with improved onset and less pain during injection.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
4%阿替卡因缓冲治疗下颌第一磨牙浸润的麻醉效果:一项交叉临床试验。
背景:关于缓冲作用对阿替卡因临床疗效影响的有限研究报道了有争议的结果。本研究的目的是临床比较4%阿替卡因加1:10万肾上腺素缓冲剂与4%阿替卡因加1:10万肾上腺素非缓冲剂对下颌第一磨牙颊部浸润的注射疼痛、麻醉成功率、起效和持续时间。方法:63名志愿者参加了这项研究。所有的志愿者都接受了两次注射,分别是1.8毫升4%阿替卡因和1.8毫升4%阿替卡因和8.4%碳酸氢钠缓冲的1:10万肾上腺素滴入下颌第一磨牙。渗透是在两次单独的约会中应用的,间隔至少一周。在检查部位注射麻醉溶液后,在随后的60分钟内,每2分钟对第一磨牙进行一次牙髓检测。结果:使用非缓冲阿替卡因溶液的患者牙髓麻醉成功率为69.8%,使用缓冲阿替卡因溶液的患者牙髓麻醉成功率为76.2%,两种配方之间无显著差异(P = 0.219)。两种配方(n = 43)麻醉成功的志愿者平均麻醉开始时间为:无缓冲阿卡因溶液6.6±1.6 min,缓冲阿卡因溶液4.5±1.6 min,差异有统计学意义(P = 0.001)。在同一志愿者中,非缓冲阿替卡因溶液的平均麻醉时间为28.4±7.1 min,缓冲阿替卡因溶液的平均麻醉时间为30.2±8.5 min,两种配方之间无显著差异(P = 0.231)。考虑到注射疼痛,无论麻醉是否成功,无缓冲阿卡因溶液的VAS平均值为11.3±8.2 mm,缓冲阿卡因溶液的VAS平均值为7.8±6.5 mm,差异有统计学意义(P = 0.001 < 0.05)。结论:根据本研究,4%阿替卡因加肾上腺素可受益于缓冲作用,提供更好的麻醉行为,改善起效,减轻注射时的疼痛。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Assessment of Maternal Mortality Rate and Associated Risk Factors at Tertiary Hospitals in Burundi (2020-2021): A retrospective Cohort Study An Unusual Case of Huge Cervical Fibroid with Tubercular Aortic Nodes in Case of Aortic Occlusion Psychopathological Characteristics in Patients with Digestive Problems: A Comparative Analysis with a Healthy Control Group The Role of Patients’ Advocacy Groups to Reduce Headache Pain in the European Union: from the Italian Case History to the European Migraine Action Plan Building MODFLOW Model in ModelMuse GUI For Bari Doab
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1