Presentation on theme: "Articaine for Supplemental Buccal Mandibular Infiltration Anesthesia in Patients with Irreversible Pulpitis When the Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Fails."— Presentation transcript:
1Articaine for Supplemental Buccal Mandibular Infiltration Anesthesia in Patients with Irreversible Pulpitis When the Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Fails Rachel Matthews, DMD, MS,* Melissa Drum, DDS, MS,* Al Reader, DDS, MS,* John Nusstein, DDS, MS,* and Mike Beck, DDS, MA† JOE — Volume 35, Number 3, March 2009, 343-6
2IntroductionIAN blocks in patients with irreversible pulpitis : success rates of only 19%–56%need to consider supplemental techniquesIn April 2000, articaine was introduced in the United States
3IntroductionHaas et al, 1990 compared infiltrations of 4% articaine and 4% prilocaine formulations in the mandibular canines and second molars of asymptomatic subjects : no statistical differencesKanaa et al (2006) compared a cartridge of 2% lidocaine with a cartridge of 4% articaine for buccal infiltration anesthesia of the mandibular first molar in asymptomatic subjects. Articaine (64% ) higher success rate > lidocaine (39%)Haas พบว่าไม่มีความแตกต่างในการใช้ 4% articaine VS 4% prilocaine ในการฉีด infiltrate ที่ mandibularcanine or molar
4IntroductionJung et al (2008) found a success rate of 54% by using a buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in mandibular first molars.Corbett et al (2008) found success rates ranged from 64%–70% when using articaine as a buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar.(achieving 2 consecutive pulp test readings of 80)
5IntroductionRobertson et al (2007) compared the degree of pulpal anesthesia achieved with mandibular first molar buccal infiltrations of 4% articaine with and 2% lidocaineArticaine (87% ) higher success rate > lidocaine (57%)(achieving 2 consecutive pulp test readings of 80)Therefore, 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine is superior to 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in mandibular buccal infiltration of the first molar in asymptomatic subjects.
6IntroductionHaase et al (2008) added an infiltration of either articaine or lidocaine in the mandibular first molar after an IAN block in asymptomatic subjects.Articaine (88% ) higher success rate > lidocaine (71%)2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained within 10 minutes after the IAN block plus infiltration injections, and the 80 reading was continuously sustained through the 60th minute)
7IntroductionRosenberg et al (2007) compared articaine with lidocaine for supplemental buccal infiltration in maxillary and mandibular teeth in patients presenting with irreversible pulpitis.For the 26 mandibular teeth (13 articaine and 13 lidocaine) receiving buccal infiltrations after the IAN block failedthere was no significant difference between the 2 solutions.
8IntroductionHowever, success was evaluated by using a visual analogue scale (VAS) rather than performing endodontic treatment to evaluate anesthesia.VAS pain scale does not fully predict the clinical efficacy of different anesthetics.needs further investigation to ensure its appropriate clinical use.
9The purpose of this prospective study to determine the anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental buccal infiltration injection of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in mandibular posterior teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis when the conventional IAN block failed.
10Materials and Methods 82 initial adult patients All were emergency patientsgood healthThe Ohio State University Human Subjects Review Committee approved both the protocol and informed consent document, and written informed consent was obtained from each patient.
11Materials and Methods Exclusion criteria were as follows: younger than 18 years of ageallergies to local anesthetics or sulfitesPregnancyhistory of significant medical conditionstaking any medications that might affect anesthetic assessmentactive sites of pathosis in area of injectioninability to give informed consent
12Materials and Methodswas actively experiencing moderate to severe painprolonged response to cold testing tetrafluoroethanePatients with no response to cold testing or periradicular pathosis were excluded from the study.tooth that fulfilled the criteria for a clinical diagnosis of irreversible pulpitis.All teeth had vital coronal pulp tissue on endodontic access.
13Materials and Methodsadministered standard IAN blocks and long buccal injections by using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine by the senior author (R.M.).every minute for 15 min: experiencing lip numbness.At 15 minutes after the IAN block, the teeth were isolated with a rubber dam, and access was performed.The patients were instructed to definitively rate any discomfort during access by using a Heft-Parker VAS.
14Materials and Methods The VAS was divided into 4 categories. No pain corresponded to 0 mm.Mild pain was defined as greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 54 mm. Mild pain included the descriptors of faint, weak, and mild pain.Moderate pain was defined as greater than 54 mm and less than 114 mm and only included the descriptor of moderate pain.Severe pain was defined as equal to or greater than 114 mm. Severe pain included the descriptors of strong, intense, and maximum possible.
15Materials and MethodsThe 55 patients who had moderate or severe pain (VAS rating greater than 54 mm) during access into dentin or when entering the pulp chamber received supplemental buccal infiltration injections with a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrineFor the 27 patients with successful IAN blocks, endodontic treatment was successfully performed (none or mild pain) without the need for any supplemental injections.
16Materials and MethodsAfter removal of the rubber dam, a standard infiltration injection was administered buccal to the tooth under treatment.The 27-gauge short needle was gently placed into the alveolar mucosauntil the needle was estimated to be at or just superior to the apex (apices)The anesthetic solution was deposited during a period of 1 minuteAll infiltrations were given by the senior author (R.M.).
17Materials and MethodsBefore administering the infiltration injection, the subjects were instructed to rate the pain of needle insertion, needle placement, and solution deposition by using the Heft-Parker VAS.After waiting 5 minutes for the infiltration to take effect, the rubber dam was replaced, and endodontic access was continued.
18Materials and MethodsThe success of the supplemental buccal infiltration injection was defined as the ability to access the pulp chamber, place initial files, and instrument the tooth without pain (VAS score of 0) or mild pain (VAS rating less than or equal to 54 mm).If the patient had moderate to severe pain (VAS rating greater than 54 mm) during access or initial instrumentation, the infiltration injection was judged as a failure, and an intraosseous or intrapulpal injection was administered.The data were statistically analyzed. 95% confidence intervals
19Results 82 adult patients, 42 men and 40 women, from age 18–71 years with an average age of 35 years participated in the initial IANblock.41of the mandibular teeth were first molars, 29 were second molars, 6 were second premolars, and 6 were first premolars.Overall success = 33% (27/82). Successes first molar= 37% (15/41); second molar= 21% (6/29);second premolar= 50% (3/6); and first premolar= 50% (3/6).55 adult patients, 29 men and 26 women, from age 18–71 years with an average age of 33 years participated in the supplemental infiltration of articaine.26 =first molars, 23 = second molars, 3 = second premolars, and 3 = first premolars (Table 1).Anesthetic success of the buccal infiltration injection of articaine is presented in Table 1.
20ResultsDiscomfort ratings of the infiltration injection are presented in Table 2.
21DiscussionThe purpose of the current study was to look at supplemental buccal infiltrations of articaine in failed IAN blocks.We considered adding another comparison group to the current study, for example, the intraosseous injection, lidocaine infiltrationWe could have designed the study to give all patients IAN blocks plus supplemental buccal infiltrations. However, there would be no way to know how many of the IAN blocks failed. Therefore, the successful IAN block patients would receive the supplemental buccal infiltrations when there was no indication it was required.
22DiscussionWe did not test for anesthesia (pulp testing) before starting treatmentThe success rate of 33% in the current study would be within the range of the 19%–56% success rate recorded previously (1–6) for IAN blocks in patients with irreversible pulpitis.supplemental techniques are required when an IAN block fails
23DiscussionWhen evaluating primary buccal infiltrations of articaine in the mandibular first molars of asymptomatic subjects, articaine has proved to be superior to lidocaineTherefore, we chose to use an articaine formulation in the current study
24DiscussionThe overall success rate of 58% for the supplemental buccal infiltration of articaine in mandibular posterior teeth is lower than the success rates of 82%–91% recorded with supplemental intraosseous anesthesia with lidocaine or articaine formulations (3, 17–19).intraosseous injection is the efficacy of placing the local anesthetic solution directly into the medullary bonebuccal infiltration, the anesthetic solution must diffuse through the bone or gain access through the mental foramen
25DiscussionTherefore, the success of the buccal supplemental infiltration of articaine is lower than the supplemental intraligamentary injection when reinjection is used.Walton and Abbott (20) reported a 63% success rate of the supplemental intraligamentary injection during endodontic and restorative procedures. Reinjection, if the first intraligamentary injection failed, was shown to be successful in 71% of the patients for an overall success rate of 92%.Smith et al (21) reported an 83% success rate for the supplemental intraligamentary injection in endodontic patients. Reinjection was required in 33% of the patients to achieve the 83% success rate.Cohen et al (1) studied endodontic patients with irreversible pulpitis and found that a supplemental intraligamentary injection was 74% successful. Reinjection increased success to 96%. Nusstein et al (22) administered supplemental intraligamentary injections with a computer-controlled anesthetic delivery system in mandibular posterior teeth and achieved a 56% success rate. No reinjection was performed in the study by Nusstein et al (22). Therefore,
26DiscussionSuccess was less for the second molar than the first molar, as shown in Table 1. It might be that the thicker bone in the second molar resulted in less of the anesthetic solution diffusing to the tooth.By contrast, the premolars (Table 1) showed a high success rate. It is possible that access to the mental foramen or the thinner bone allowed better diffusion of the anesthetic solution to the premolar teeth.However, no firm conclusions regarding success can be made because of the small number of teeth in this group.Generally the anesthetic success rate of only 58% and 48% for the molars with a supplemental buccal infiltration of articaine would not provide predictable pulpal anesthesia for all patients requiring profound anesthesia.
27Discussion onset of pulpal anesthesia results of Robertson et al (13), would be approximately 5 minutes.In contrast, an intraosseous injection of lidocaine or articaine has an immediate onset of pulpal anesthesia
28DiscussionThe pain ratings for the 3 phases of the articaine infiltrationAll the values were less than 16 mm on the VAS, indicating mild pain.In asymptomatic subjects, Robertson et al (13) for the 3 phases of a primary buccal infiltration of articaine ranged from 24–36mm on the VAS.current study, the pain ratings were lower, ranging from 11–16 mm.the use of a supplemental buccal infiltration with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine will generally result in mild pain.
29DiscussionWe can conclude that when the IAN block fails to provide profound pulpal anesthesia, the supplemental buccal infiltration injection of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine would be successful 58% of the time for the mandibular posterior teeth in patients presenting with irreversible pulpitis. Unfortunately, the modest success rate would not provide predictable pulpal anesthesia for all patients requiring profound anesthesia.