Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of articaine in irreversible pulpitis of the mandibular molar: A randomized clinical trial
The aim of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of two volumes of articaine in conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) of mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis, and in cases of anesthetic failure, its complementation with periodontal ligament injection (PDL). Ninety pat...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2019-07, Vol.14 (7), p.e0219536-e0219536 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e0219536 |
---|---|
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | e0219536 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 14 |
creator | Silva, Stella Agra Horliana, Anna Carolina Ratto Tempestini Pannuti, Cláudio Mendes Braz-Silva, Paulo Henrique Bispo, Carina Gisele Costa Buscariolo, Inês Aparecida Rocha, Rodney Garcia Tortamano, Isabel Peixoto |
description | The aim of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of two volumes of articaine in conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) of mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis, and in cases of anesthetic failure, its complementation with periodontal ligament injection (PDL).
Ninety patients with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular molars received conventional IANB with 1.8 mL or 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. In cases of IANB failure, the same volumes were administered in the PDL. Presence of pulpal anesthesia and absence/presence of pain during pulpectomy were evaluated by electric pulp stimulation and verbal analogue scale, respectively. Relative risks (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for each outcome.
27% and 42% of the patients achieved pulpal anesthesia following IANB with 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL, respectively (RR = 0.63, CI 95% 0.35 to 1.14, p = 0.12). Analgesia during pulpectomy was present in 64% and 73% of the patients, respectively, for 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL (RR = 0.87, CI 95% 0.66 to 1.16, p = 0.36). In cases of IANB failure, 75% and 42% of the patients that received 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of PDL injection, respectively, achieved pulpal anesthesia (RR = 1.80, CI 95% 0.87 to 3.72, p = 0.11). During a new attempt at the pulpectomy procedure, analgesia was present in 69% and 75% of the patients, respectively, for 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL (RR = 0.91, CI 95% 0.57 to 1.45, p = 0.71).
Increasing the volume from 1.8 mL to 3.6 mL of the 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in the IANB and in the PDL, did not significantly increase the success rate of pulpal anesthesia and clinical analgesia during the pulpectomy procedure. Therefore, both volumes presented a similar efficacy, though neither resulted in effective pain control during irreversible pulpitis treatment.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02422823. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0219536 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2267556153</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A595104954</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_f197e08697724d5da16f937385fb4576</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A595104954</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-877611a16d965ce1ee9c5f80134225a7606cb654edefe27c1ed886ceb03f37c63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk22L1DAQx4so3nn6DUQDguiLrU3TJK0vhGXxYWHhwKe3IU0nu1nSZi9pF8_v4nc1ve0du3IvpJAOk9_8JzPJJMlznKWYcPxu6wbfSZvuXAdpluOKEvYgOccVyWcsz8jDI_sseRLCNssoKRl7nJwRTBileXWe_Fm4die97M0eEOylHaLpOuQ0kh2EfgO9UQi0Nkqq69GN0xK1q7jbIJKy0RxZHzFpOkCmQ8Z72IMPpraAdoPdmd6EkYpqqI2Bph6s9Kh1cX2P5shHn2vNb2iQsqaLShb13kj7NHmkpQ3wbPpfJD8-ffy--DJbXX5eLuarmWJV3s9KzhnGErOmYlQBBqgU1WWGSZHnVHKWMVUzWkADGnKuMDRlyRTUGdGEK0YukpcH3Z11QUydDSLPGaeUYUoisTwQjZNbsfOmlf5aOGnEjcP5tbjpgQWhccUhK1nFeV40tInn0hXhpKS6Ligfs32Ysg11C42CrvfSnoie7nRmI9ZuLxhjsdQyCryZBLy7GuItidYEBdbGK3PD4dy8yoocR_TVP-j91U3UWsYCTKddzKtGUTGnFcVZUdEiUuk9VPwaaI2Kz1Cb6D8JeHsSEJkefvVrOYQglt--_j97-fOUfX3EbkDafhOcHcaXG07B4gAq70LwoO-ajDMxTtFtN8Q4RWKaohj24viC7oJux4b8BUhGF4Y</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2267556153</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of articaine in irreversible pulpitis of the mandibular molar: A randomized clinical trial</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Silva, Stella Agra ; Horliana, Anna Carolina Ratto Tempestini ; Pannuti, Cláudio Mendes ; Braz-Silva, Paulo Henrique ; Bispo, Carina Gisele Costa ; Buscariolo, Inês Aparecida ; Rocha, Rodney Garcia ; Tortamano, Isabel Peixoto</creator><contributor>Papageorgiou, Spyridon N.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Silva, Stella Agra ; Horliana, Anna Carolina Ratto Tempestini ; Pannuti, Cláudio Mendes ; Braz-Silva, Paulo Henrique ; Bispo, Carina Gisele Costa ; Buscariolo, Inês Aparecida ; Rocha, Rodney Garcia ; Tortamano, Isabel Peixoto ; Papageorgiou, Spyridon N.</creatorcontrib><description>The aim of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of two volumes of articaine in conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) of mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis, and in cases of anesthetic failure, its complementation with periodontal ligament injection (PDL).
Ninety patients with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular molars received conventional IANB with 1.8 mL or 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. In cases of IANB failure, the same volumes were administered in the PDL. Presence of pulpal anesthesia and absence/presence of pain during pulpectomy were evaluated by electric pulp stimulation and verbal analogue scale, respectively. Relative risks (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for each outcome.
27% and 42% of the patients achieved pulpal anesthesia following IANB with 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL, respectively (RR = 0.63, CI 95% 0.35 to 1.14, p = 0.12). Analgesia during pulpectomy was present in 64% and 73% of the patients, respectively, for 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL (RR = 0.87, CI 95% 0.66 to 1.16, p = 0.36). In cases of IANB failure, 75% and 42% of the patients that received 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of PDL injection, respectively, achieved pulpal anesthesia (RR = 1.80, CI 95% 0.87 to 3.72, p = 0.11). During a new attempt at the pulpectomy procedure, analgesia was present in 69% and 75% of the patients, respectively, for 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL (RR = 0.91, CI 95% 0.57 to 1.45, p = 0.71).
Increasing the volume from 1.8 mL to 3.6 mL of the 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in the IANB and in the PDL, did not significantly increase the success rate of pulpal anesthesia and clinical analgesia during the pulpectomy procedure. Therefore, both volumes presented a similar efficacy, though neither resulted in effective pain control during irreversible pulpitis treatment.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02422823.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219536</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31365529</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adrenergic agonists ; Alveoli ; Analgesia ; Analysis ; Anesthesia ; Anesthetics ; Articaine ; Care and treatment ; Clinical trials ; Confidence intervals ; Effectiveness ; Epinephrine ; Failure ; Health aspects ; Injection ; Mandible ; Molars ; Pain ; Pain management ; Pain perception ; Patients ; Periodontal ligament ; Pulp ; Pulpitis ; Risk assessment ; Success ; Systematic review ; Teeth ; Treatment outcome</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2019-07, Vol.14 (7), p.e0219536-e0219536</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2019 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2019 Silva et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2019 Silva et al 2019 Silva et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-877611a16d965ce1ee9c5f80134225a7606cb654edefe27c1ed886ceb03f37c63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-877611a16d965ce1ee9c5f80134225a7606cb654edefe27c1ed886ceb03f37c63</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1842-9521 ; 0000-0002-2384-5183</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6668778/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6668778/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31365529$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Papageorgiou, Spyridon N.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Silva, Stella Agra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Horliana, Anna Carolina Ratto Tempestini</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pannuti, Cláudio Mendes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Braz-Silva, Paulo Henrique</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bispo, Carina Gisele Costa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buscariolo, Inês Aparecida</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rocha, Rodney Garcia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tortamano, Isabel Peixoto</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of articaine in irreversible pulpitis of the mandibular molar: A randomized clinical trial</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>The aim of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of two volumes of articaine in conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) of mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis, and in cases of anesthetic failure, its complementation with periodontal ligament injection (PDL).
Ninety patients with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular molars received conventional IANB with 1.8 mL or 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. In cases of IANB failure, the same volumes were administered in the PDL. Presence of pulpal anesthesia and absence/presence of pain during pulpectomy were evaluated by electric pulp stimulation and verbal analogue scale, respectively. Relative risks (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for each outcome.
27% and 42% of the patients achieved pulpal anesthesia following IANB with 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL, respectively (RR = 0.63, CI 95% 0.35 to 1.14, p = 0.12). Analgesia during pulpectomy was present in 64% and 73% of the patients, respectively, for 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL (RR = 0.87, CI 95% 0.66 to 1.16, p = 0.36). In cases of IANB failure, 75% and 42% of the patients that received 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of PDL injection, respectively, achieved pulpal anesthesia (RR = 1.80, CI 95% 0.87 to 3.72, p = 0.11). During a new attempt at the pulpectomy procedure, analgesia was present in 69% and 75% of the patients, respectively, for 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL (RR = 0.91, CI 95% 0.57 to 1.45, p = 0.71).
Increasing the volume from 1.8 mL to 3.6 mL of the 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in the IANB and in the PDL, did not significantly increase the success rate of pulpal anesthesia and clinical analgesia during the pulpectomy procedure. Therefore, both volumes presented a similar efficacy, though neither resulted in effective pain control during irreversible pulpitis treatment.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02422823.</description><subject>Adrenergic agonists</subject><subject>Alveoli</subject><subject>Analgesia</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Anesthesia</subject><subject>Anesthetics</subject><subject>Articaine</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Effectiveness</subject><subject>Epinephrine</subject><subject>Failure</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Injection</subject><subject>Mandible</subject><subject>Molars</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Pain management</subject><subject>Pain perception</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Periodontal ligament</subject><subject>Pulp</subject><subject>Pulpitis</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><subject>Success</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Teeth</subject><subject>Treatment outcome</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk22L1DAQx4so3nn6DUQDguiLrU3TJK0vhGXxYWHhwKe3IU0nu1nSZi9pF8_v4nc1ve0du3IvpJAOk9_8JzPJJMlznKWYcPxu6wbfSZvuXAdpluOKEvYgOccVyWcsz8jDI_sseRLCNssoKRl7nJwRTBileXWe_Fm4die97M0eEOylHaLpOuQ0kh2EfgO9UQi0Nkqq69GN0xK1q7jbIJKy0RxZHzFpOkCmQ8Z72IMPpraAdoPdmd6EkYpqqI2Bph6s9Kh1cX2P5shHn2vNb2iQsqaLShb13kj7NHmkpQ3wbPpfJD8-ffy--DJbXX5eLuarmWJV3s9KzhnGErOmYlQBBqgU1WWGSZHnVHKWMVUzWkADGnKuMDRlyRTUGdGEK0YukpcH3Z11QUydDSLPGaeUYUoisTwQjZNbsfOmlf5aOGnEjcP5tbjpgQWhccUhK1nFeV40tInn0hXhpKS6Ligfs32Ysg11C42CrvfSnoie7nRmI9ZuLxhjsdQyCryZBLy7GuItidYEBdbGK3PD4dy8yoocR_TVP-j91U3UWsYCTKddzKtGUTGnFcVZUdEiUuk9VPwaaI2Kz1Cb6D8JeHsSEJkefvVrOYQglt--_j97-fOUfX3EbkDafhOcHcaXG07B4gAq70LwoO-ajDMxTtFtN8Q4RWKaohj24viC7oJux4b8BUhGF4Y</recordid><startdate>20190731</startdate><enddate>20190731</enddate><creator>Silva, Stella Agra</creator><creator>Horliana, Anna Carolina Ratto Tempestini</creator><creator>Pannuti, Cláudio Mendes</creator><creator>Braz-Silva, Paulo Henrique</creator><creator>Bispo, Carina Gisele Costa</creator><creator>Buscariolo, Inês Aparecida</creator><creator>Rocha, Rodney Garcia</creator><creator>Tortamano, Isabel Peixoto</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1842-9521</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2384-5183</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190731</creationdate><title>Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of articaine in irreversible pulpitis of the mandibular molar: A randomized clinical trial</title><author>Silva, Stella Agra ; Horliana, Anna Carolina Ratto Tempestini ; Pannuti, Cláudio Mendes ; Braz-Silva, Paulo Henrique ; Bispo, Carina Gisele Costa ; Buscariolo, Inês Aparecida ; Rocha, Rodney Garcia ; Tortamano, Isabel Peixoto</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-877611a16d965ce1ee9c5f80134225a7606cb654edefe27c1ed886ceb03f37c63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Adrenergic agonists</topic><topic>Alveoli</topic><topic>Analgesia</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Anesthesia</topic><topic>Anesthetics</topic><topic>Articaine</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Effectiveness</topic><topic>Epinephrine</topic><topic>Failure</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Injection</topic><topic>Mandible</topic><topic>Molars</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Pain management</topic><topic>Pain perception</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Periodontal ligament</topic><topic>Pulp</topic><topic>Pulpitis</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><topic>Success</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Teeth</topic><topic>Treatment outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Silva, Stella Agra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Horliana, Anna Carolina Ratto Tempestini</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pannuti, Cláudio Mendes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Braz-Silva, Paulo Henrique</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bispo, Carina Gisele Costa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buscariolo, Inês Aparecida</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rocha, Rodney Garcia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tortamano, Isabel Peixoto</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Silva, Stella Agra</au><au>Horliana, Anna Carolina Ratto Tempestini</au><au>Pannuti, Cláudio Mendes</au><au>Braz-Silva, Paulo Henrique</au><au>Bispo, Carina Gisele Costa</au><au>Buscariolo, Inês Aparecida</au><au>Rocha, Rodney Garcia</au><au>Tortamano, Isabel Peixoto</au><au>Papageorgiou, Spyridon N.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of articaine in irreversible pulpitis of the mandibular molar: A randomized clinical trial</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2019-07-31</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>e0219536</spage><epage>e0219536</epage><pages>e0219536-e0219536</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>The aim of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of two volumes of articaine in conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) of mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis, and in cases of anesthetic failure, its complementation with periodontal ligament injection (PDL).
Ninety patients with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular molars received conventional IANB with 1.8 mL or 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. In cases of IANB failure, the same volumes were administered in the PDL. Presence of pulpal anesthesia and absence/presence of pain during pulpectomy were evaluated by electric pulp stimulation and verbal analogue scale, respectively. Relative risks (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for each outcome.
27% and 42% of the patients achieved pulpal anesthesia following IANB with 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL, respectively (RR = 0.63, CI 95% 0.35 to 1.14, p = 0.12). Analgesia during pulpectomy was present in 64% and 73% of the patients, respectively, for 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL (RR = 0.87, CI 95% 0.66 to 1.16, p = 0.36). In cases of IANB failure, 75% and 42% of the patients that received 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of PDL injection, respectively, achieved pulpal anesthesia (RR = 1.80, CI 95% 0.87 to 3.72, p = 0.11). During a new attempt at the pulpectomy procedure, analgesia was present in 69% and 75% of the patients, respectively, for 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL (RR = 0.91, CI 95% 0.57 to 1.45, p = 0.71).
Increasing the volume from 1.8 mL to 3.6 mL of the 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in the IANB and in the PDL, did not significantly increase the success rate of pulpal anesthesia and clinical analgesia during the pulpectomy procedure. Therefore, both volumes presented a similar efficacy, though neither resulted in effective pain control during irreversible pulpitis treatment.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02422823.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>31365529</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0219536</doi><tpages>e0219536</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1842-9521</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2384-5183</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2019-07, Vol.14 (7), p.e0219536-e0219536 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2267556153 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
subjects | Adrenergic agonists Alveoli Analgesia Analysis Anesthesia Anesthetics Articaine Care and treatment Clinical trials Confidence intervals Effectiveness Epinephrine Failure Health aspects Injection Mandible Molars Pain Pain management Pain perception Patients Periodontal ligament Pulp Pulpitis Risk assessment Success Systematic review Teeth Treatment outcome |
title | Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of articaine in irreversible pulpitis of the mandibular molar: A randomized clinical trial |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T09%3A06%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20evaluation%20of%20anesthetic%20efficacy%20of%201.8%20mL%20and%203.6%20mL%20of%20articaine%20in%20irreversible%20pulpitis%20of%20the%20mandibular%20molar:%20A%20randomized%20clinical%20trial&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Silva,%20Stella%20Agra&rft.date=2019-07-31&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=e0219536&rft.epage=e0219536&rft.pages=e0219536-e0219536&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0219536&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA595104954%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2267556153&rft_id=info:pmid/31365529&rft_galeid=A595104954&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_f197e08697724d5da16f937385fb4576&rfr_iscdi=true |