• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• 제22권1호
• /
• pp.39-47
• /
• 2022

Background: This was a randomized controlled clinical trial that aimed to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of 2% lidocaine combined with different concentrations of epinephrine (plain, 1:200,000 and 1:80,000) during endodontic treatment of maxillary molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Methods: The trial included 144 adult patients who were randomly allocated to three treatment groups. All patients received buccal-plus-palatal infiltration. After 10 min, pulp sensibility testing was performed using an electric pulp test (EPT). If a tooth responded positively, anesthesia was considered to have failed. In the case of a negative EPT response, endodontic access was initiated under rubber dam isolation. The success of anesthesia was defined as having a pain score less than 55 on the Heft Parker visual analog scale (HP VAS), which was categorized as 'no pain' or 'faint/weak/mild' pain on the HP VAS. Baseline pre-injection and post-injection maximum heart rates were recorded. The Pearson chi-square test was used to analyze the anesthetic success rates at 5% significance. Results: Plain 2% lidocaine and 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 1:80,000 epinephrine had anesthetic success rates of 18.75%, 72.9%, and 82.3%, respectively. Statistical analysis indicated significant differences between the groups (P < 0.001, 𝛘² = 47.5, df = 2). The maximum heart rate increase was seen with 2% lidocaine solution with epinephrine. Conclusion: Adding epinephrine to 2% lidocaine significantly improves its anesthetic success rates during the root canal treatment of maxillary molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.69-76
• /
• 2015

Background: There have been few studies on the effect of an elevated concentration of lidocaine hydrochloride in the surgical removal of an impacted lower third molar. This study aimed to examine the efficacy of 4% lidocaine along with 1:100,000 epinephrine compared to 2% lidocaine along with 1:100,000 epinephrine as inferior alveolar nerve block for the removal of an impacted lower third molar. Methods: This single-blind study involved 31 healthy patients (mean age: 23 y; range: 19-33 y) with symmetrically impacted lower third molars as observed on panoramic radiographs. Volunteers required 2 surgical interventions by the same surgeon with a 3-week washout period. The volunteers were assigned either 4% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as local anesthetic during each operation. Results: We recorded the time of administration, need for additional anesthetic administration, total volume of anesthetic used. We found that the patient's preference for either of the 2 types of local anesthetic were significantly different (P < 0.05). However, the extent of pulpal anesthesia, surgical duration, and duration of soft tissue anesthesia were not significantly different. Conclusions: Our study suggested that inferior alveolar nerve block using 4% lidocaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a local anesthetic was clinically more effective than that using 2% lidocaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine; the surgical duration was not affected, and no clinically adverse effects were encountered.