Buffered Versus Non-Buffered Lidocaine With Epinephrine for Mandibular Nerve Block: Clinical Outcomes
Purpose Outcomes for peak blood levels were assessed for buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine compared with non-buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Patients and Methods In this institutional review board–approved prospective, randomized, double-blinded, crossover trial, the...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery 2017-04, Vol.75 (4), p.688-693 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 693 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 688 |
container_title | Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery |
container_volume | 75 |
creator | Phero, James A., DDS, MD Nelson, Blake, BS, DDS Davis, Bobby, BS Dunlop, Natalie, BS Phillips, Ceib, PhD, MPH Reside, Glenn, DDS Tikunov, Andrew P., PhD White, Raymond P., DDS, PhD |
description | Purpose Outcomes for peak blood levels were assessed for buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine compared with non-buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Patients and Methods In this institutional review board–approved prospective, randomized, double-blinded, crossover trial, the clinical impact of buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (Anutra Medical, Research Triangle Park, Cary, NC) was compared with the non-buffered drug. Venous blood samples for lidocaine were obtained 30 minutes after a mandibular nerve block with 80 mg of the buffered or unbuffered drug. Two weeks later, the same subjects were tested with the alternate drug combinations. Subjects also reported on pain on injection with a 10-point Likert-type scale and time to lower lip numbness. The explanatory variable was the drug formulation. Outcome variables were subjects' peak blood lidocaine levels, subjective responses to pain on injection, and time to lower lip numbness. Serum lidocaine levels were analyzed with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Statistical analyses were performed using Proc TTEST (SAS 9.3; SAS Institute, Cary, NC), with the crossover option for a 2-period crossover design, to analyze the normally distributed outcome for pain. For non-normally distributed outcomes of blood lidocaine levels and time to lower lip numbness, an assessment of treatment difference was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests with Proc NPAR1WAY (SAS 9.3). Statistical significance was set at a P value less than .05 for all outcomes. Results Forty-eight percent of subjects were women, half were Caucasian, 22% were African American, and 13% were Asian. Median age was 21 years (interquartile range [IQR], 20-22 yr), and median body weight was 147 lb (IQR, 130-170 lb). Median blood levels (44 blood samples) at 30 minutes were 1.19 μg/L per kilogram of body weight. Mean blood level differences of lidocaine for each patient were significantly lower after nerve block with the buffered drug compared with the non-buffered agent ( P < .01). Mean score for pain on injection for nerve block (n = 46 scores) was 3.3 (standard deviation, 0.9). Seventy-eight percent of subjects reported lower or the same pain scores with the buffered drug; 61% of subjects reported a shorter time to lower lip numbness with the buffered drug. Conclusions Buffering 2% lidocaine with epinephrine can produce clinical outcomes favorable for subjects and clinicians without clinically detrimental peak b |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.joms.2016.09.055 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1836732573</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S027823911630920X</els_id><sourcerecordid>1836732573</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-b68f6ada269671ce8e44068ec07166704d09daa7c646464a66ab3c159e792bad3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUtv1DAUhS0EokPhD7BAXrJJ6kdsJwghtaNCkYZ2wXNnOfaN6jSJBzup1H-Poxm6YIG88NXROUe630XoNSUlJVSe9WUfxlSyPJekKYkQT9CGCk4LQQR_ijaEqbpgvKEn6EVKPSGUCiWfo5OsU0GJ2CC4WLoOIjj8A2JaEr4OU_Go7bwL1vgJ8E8_3-LLfR73t3EVuhDxFzM53y6Difga4j3giyHYu3d4O_jJWzPgm2W2YYT0Ej3rzJDg1fE_Rd8_Xn7bXhW7m0-ft-e7wlZCzEUr604aZ5hspKIWaqgqImuwRFEpFakcaZwxyspqfUZK03JLRQOqYa1x_BS9PfTuY_i9QJr16JOFYTAThCVpWnOpOBOKZys7WG0MKUXo9D760cQHTYle8eper3j1ileTRme8OfTm2L-0I7jHyF-e2fD-YIC85b2HqJP1MFlwPoKdtQv-__0f_onbI8o7eIDUhyVOmZ-mOjFN9Nf1wOt9qeSkYeQX_wPueqCq</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1836732573</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Buffered Versus Non-Buffered Lidocaine With Epinephrine for Mandibular Nerve Block: Clinical Outcomes</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Phero, James A., DDS, MD ; Nelson, Blake, BS, DDS ; Davis, Bobby, BS ; Dunlop, Natalie, BS ; Phillips, Ceib, PhD, MPH ; Reside, Glenn, DDS ; Tikunov, Andrew P., PhD ; White, Raymond P., DDS, PhD</creator><creatorcontrib>Phero, James A., DDS, MD ; Nelson, Blake, BS, DDS ; Davis, Bobby, BS ; Dunlop, Natalie, BS ; Phillips, Ceib, PhD, MPH ; Reside, Glenn, DDS ; Tikunov, Andrew P., PhD ; White, Raymond P., DDS, PhD</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose Outcomes for peak blood levels were assessed for buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine compared with non-buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Patients and Methods In this institutional review board–approved prospective, randomized, double-blinded, crossover trial, the clinical impact of buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (Anutra Medical, Research Triangle Park, Cary, NC) was compared with the non-buffered drug. Venous blood samples for lidocaine were obtained 30 minutes after a mandibular nerve block with 80 mg of the buffered or unbuffered drug. Two weeks later, the same subjects were tested with the alternate drug combinations. Subjects also reported on pain on injection with a 10-point Likert-type scale and time to lower lip numbness. The explanatory variable was the drug formulation. Outcome variables were subjects' peak blood lidocaine levels, subjective responses to pain on injection, and time to lower lip numbness. Serum lidocaine levels were analyzed with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Statistical analyses were performed using Proc TTEST (SAS 9.3; SAS Institute, Cary, NC), with the crossover option for a 2-period crossover design, to analyze the normally distributed outcome for pain. For non-normally distributed outcomes of blood lidocaine levels and time to lower lip numbness, an assessment of treatment difference was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests with Proc NPAR1WAY (SAS 9.3). Statistical significance was set at a P value less than .05 for all outcomes. Results Forty-eight percent of subjects were women, half were Caucasian, 22% were African American, and 13% were Asian. Median age was 21 years (interquartile range [IQR], 20-22 yr), and median body weight was 147 lb (IQR, 130-170 lb). Median blood levels (44 blood samples) at 30 minutes were 1.19 μg/L per kilogram of body weight. Mean blood level differences of lidocaine for each patient were significantly lower after nerve block with the buffered drug compared with the non-buffered agent ( P < .01). Mean score for pain on injection for nerve block (n = 46 scores) was 3.3 (standard deviation, 0.9). Seventy-eight percent of subjects reported lower or the same pain scores with the buffered drug; 61% of subjects reported a shorter time to lower lip numbness with the buffered drug. Conclusions Buffering 2% lidocaine with epinephrine can produce clinical outcomes favorable for subjects and clinicians without clinically detrimental peak blood lidocaine levels.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0278-2391</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1531-5053</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.09.055</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27815105</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Anesthesia, Dental - methods ; Anesthetics, Local - administration & dosage ; Anesthetics, Local - blood ; Buffers ; Chromatography, Liquid ; Cross-Over Studies ; Dentistry ; Double-Blind Method ; Drug Combinations ; Epinephrine - administration & dosage ; Epinephrine - blood ; Female ; Humans ; Hydrogen-Ion Concentration ; Lidocaine - administration & dosage ; Lidocaine - blood ; Male ; Mandible ; Mass Spectrometry ; Nerve Block - methods ; Pain Measurement ; Pilot Projects ; Prospective Studies ; Surgery ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2017-04, Vol.75 (4), p.688-693</ispartof><rights>American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons</rights><rights>2016 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-b68f6ada269671ce8e44068ec07166704d09daa7c646464a66ab3c159e792bad3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-b68f6ada269671ce8e44068ec07166704d09daa7c646464a66ab3c159e792bad3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2016.09.055$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27815105$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Phero, James A., DDS, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nelson, Blake, BS, DDS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, Bobby, BS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dunlop, Natalie, BS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Phillips, Ceib, PhD, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reside, Glenn, DDS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tikunov, Andrew P., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>White, Raymond P., DDS, PhD</creatorcontrib><title>Buffered Versus Non-Buffered Lidocaine With Epinephrine for Mandibular Nerve Block: Clinical Outcomes</title><title>Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery</title><addtitle>J Oral Maxillofac Surg</addtitle><description>Purpose Outcomes for peak blood levels were assessed for buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine compared with non-buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Patients and Methods In this institutional review board–approved prospective, randomized, double-blinded, crossover trial, the clinical impact of buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (Anutra Medical, Research Triangle Park, Cary, NC) was compared with the non-buffered drug. Venous blood samples for lidocaine were obtained 30 minutes after a mandibular nerve block with 80 mg of the buffered or unbuffered drug. Two weeks later, the same subjects were tested with the alternate drug combinations. Subjects also reported on pain on injection with a 10-point Likert-type scale and time to lower lip numbness. The explanatory variable was the drug formulation. Outcome variables were subjects' peak blood lidocaine levels, subjective responses to pain on injection, and time to lower lip numbness. Serum lidocaine levels were analyzed with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Statistical analyses were performed using Proc TTEST (SAS 9.3; SAS Institute, Cary, NC), with the crossover option for a 2-period crossover design, to analyze the normally distributed outcome for pain. For non-normally distributed outcomes of blood lidocaine levels and time to lower lip numbness, an assessment of treatment difference was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests with Proc NPAR1WAY (SAS 9.3). Statistical significance was set at a P value less than .05 for all outcomes. Results Forty-eight percent of subjects were women, half were Caucasian, 22% were African American, and 13% were Asian. Median age was 21 years (interquartile range [IQR], 20-22 yr), and median body weight was 147 lb (IQR, 130-170 lb). Median blood levels (44 blood samples) at 30 minutes were 1.19 μg/L per kilogram of body weight. Mean blood level differences of lidocaine for each patient were significantly lower after nerve block with the buffered drug compared with the non-buffered agent ( P < .01). Mean score for pain on injection for nerve block (n = 46 scores) was 3.3 (standard deviation, 0.9). Seventy-eight percent of subjects reported lower or the same pain scores with the buffered drug; 61% of subjects reported a shorter time to lower lip numbness with the buffered drug. Conclusions Buffering 2% lidocaine with epinephrine can produce clinical outcomes favorable for subjects and clinicians without clinically detrimental peak blood lidocaine levels.</description><subject>Anesthesia, Dental - methods</subject><subject>Anesthetics, Local - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Anesthetics, Local - blood</subject><subject>Buffers</subject><subject>Chromatography, Liquid</subject><subject>Cross-Over Studies</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Double-Blind Method</subject><subject>Drug Combinations</subject><subject>Epinephrine - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Epinephrine - blood</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hydrogen-Ion Concentration</subject><subject>Lidocaine - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Lidocaine - blood</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mandible</subject><subject>Mass Spectrometry</subject><subject>Nerve Block - methods</subject><subject>Pain Measurement</subject><subject>Pilot Projects</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0278-2391</issn><issn>1531-5053</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUtv1DAUhS0EokPhD7BAXrJJ6kdsJwghtaNCkYZ2wXNnOfaN6jSJBzup1H-Poxm6YIG88NXROUe630XoNSUlJVSe9WUfxlSyPJekKYkQT9CGCk4LQQR_ijaEqbpgvKEn6EVKPSGUCiWfo5OsU0GJ2CC4WLoOIjj8A2JaEr4OU_Go7bwL1vgJ8E8_3-LLfR73t3EVuhDxFzM53y6Difga4j3giyHYu3d4O_jJWzPgm2W2YYT0Ej3rzJDg1fE_Rd8_Xn7bXhW7m0-ft-e7wlZCzEUr604aZ5hspKIWaqgqImuwRFEpFakcaZwxyspqfUZK03JLRQOqYa1x_BS9PfTuY_i9QJr16JOFYTAThCVpWnOpOBOKZys7WG0MKUXo9D760cQHTYle8eper3j1ileTRme8OfTm2L-0I7jHyF-e2fD-YIC85b2HqJP1MFlwPoKdtQv-__0f_onbI8o7eIDUhyVOmZ-mOjFN9Nf1wOt9qeSkYeQX_wPueqCq</recordid><startdate>20170401</startdate><enddate>20170401</enddate><creator>Phero, James A., DDS, MD</creator><creator>Nelson, Blake, BS, DDS</creator><creator>Davis, Bobby, BS</creator><creator>Dunlop, Natalie, BS</creator><creator>Phillips, Ceib, PhD, MPH</creator><creator>Reside, Glenn, DDS</creator><creator>Tikunov, Andrew P., PhD</creator><creator>White, Raymond P., DDS, PhD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170401</creationdate><title>Buffered Versus Non-Buffered Lidocaine With Epinephrine for Mandibular Nerve Block: Clinical Outcomes</title><author>Phero, James A., DDS, MD ; Nelson, Blake, BS, DDS ; Davis, Bobby, BS ; Dunlop, Natalie, BS ; Phillips, Ceib, PhD, MPH ; Reside, Glenn, DDS ; Tikunov, Andrew P., PhD ; White, Raymond P., DDS, PhD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-b68f6ada269671ce8e44068ec07166704d09daa7c646464a66ab3c159e792bad3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Anesthesia, Dental - methods</topic><topic>Anesthetics, Local - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Anesthetics, Local - blood</topic><topic>Buffers</topic><topic>Chromatography, Liquid</topic><topic>Cross-Over Studies</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Double-Blind Method</topic><topic>Drug Combinations</topic><topic>Epinephrine - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Epinephrine - blood</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hydrogen-Ion Concentration</topic><topic>Lidocaine - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Lidocaine - blood</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mandible</topic><topic>Mass Spectrometry</topic><topic>Nerve Block - methods</topic><topic>Pain Measurement</topic><topic>Pilot Projects</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Phero, James A., DDS, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nelson, Blake, BS, DDS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, Bobby, BS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dunlop, Natalie, BS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Phillips, Ceib, PhD, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reside, Glenn, DDS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tikunov, Andrew P., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>White, Raymond P., DDS, PhD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Phero, James A., DDS, MD</au><au>Nelson, Blake, BS, DDS</au><au>Davis, Bobby, BS</au><au>Dunlop, Natalie, BS</au><au>Phillips, Ceib, PhD, MPH</au><au>Reside, Glenn, DDS</au><au>Tikunov, Andrew P., PhD</au><au>White, Raymond P., DDS, PhD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Buffered Versus Non-Buffered Lidocaine With Epinephrine for Mandibular Nerve Block: Clinical Outcomes</atitle><jtitle>Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery</jtitle><addtitle>J Oral Maxillofac Surg</addtitle><date>2017-04-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>75</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>688</spage><epage>693</epage><pages>688-693</pages><issn>0278-2391</issn><eissn>1531-5053</eissn><abstract>Purpose Outcomes for peak blood levels were assessed for buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine compared with non-buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Patients and Methods In this institutional review board–approved prospective, randomized, double-blinded, crossover trial, the clinical impact of buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (Anutra Medical, Research Triangle Park, Cary, NC) was compared with the non-buffered drug. Venous blood samples for lidocaine were obtained 30 minutes after a mandibular nerve block with 80 mg of the buffered or unbuffered drug. Two weeks later, the same subjects were tested with the alternate drug combinations. Subjects also reported on pain on injection with a 10-point Likert-type scale and time to lower lip numbness. The explanatory variable was the drug formulation. Outcome variables were subjects' peak blood lidocaine levels, subjective responses to pain on injection, and time to lower lip numbness. Serum lidocaine levels were analyzed with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Statistical analyses were performed using Proc TTEST (SAS 9.3; SAS Institute, Cary, NC), with the crossover option for a 2-period crossover design, to analyze the normally distributed outcome for pain. For non-normally distributed outcomes of blood lidocaine levels and time to lower lip numbness, an assessment of treatment difference was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests with Proc NPAR1WAY (SAS 9.3). Statistical significance was set at a P value less than .05 for all outcomes. Results Forty-eight percent of subjects were women, half were Caucasian, 22% were African American, and 13% were Asian. Median age was 21 years (interquartile range [IQR], 20-22 yr), and median body weight was 147 lb (IQR, 130-170 lb). Median blood levels (44 blood samples) at 30 minutes were 1.19 μg/L per kilogram of body weight. Mean blood level differences of lidocaine for each patient were significantly lower after nerve block with the buffered drug compared with the non-buffered agent ( P < .01). Mean score for pain on injection for nerve block (n = 46 scores) was 3.3 (standard deviation, 0.9). Seventy-eight percent of subjects reported lower or the same pain scores with the buffered drug; 61% of subjects reported a shorter time to lower lip numbness with the buffered drug. Conclusions Buffering 2% lidocaine with epinephrine can produce clinical outcomes favorable for subjects and clinicians without clinically detrimental peak blood lidocaine levels.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>27815105</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.joms.2016.09.055</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0278-2391 |
ispartof | Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2017-04, Vol.75 (4), p.688-693 |
issn | 0278-2391 1531-5053 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1836732573 |
source | MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
subjects | Anesthesia, Dental - methods Anesthetics, Local - administration & dosage Anesthetics, Local - blood Buffers Chromatography, Liquid Cross-Over Studies Dentistry Double-Blind Method Drug Combinations Epinephrine - administration & dosage Epinephrine - blood Female Humans Hydrogen-Ion Concentration Lidocaine - administration & dosage Lidocaine - blood Male Mandible Mass Spectrometry Nerve Block - methods Pain Measurement Pilot Projects Prospective Studies Surgery Young Adult |
title | Buffered Versus Non-Buffered Lidocaine With Epinephrine for Mandibular Nerve Block: Clinical Outcomes |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T03%3A59%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Buffered%20Versus%20Non-Buffered%20Lidocaine%20With%20Epinephrine%20for%20Mandibular%20Nerve%20Block:%20Clinical%20Outcomes&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20oral%20and%20maxillofacial%20surgery&rft.au=Phero,%20James%20A.,%20DDS,%20MD&rft.date=2017-04-01&rft.volume=75&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=688&rft.epage=693&rft.pages=688-693&rft.issn=0278-2391&rft.eissn=1531-5053&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.joms.2016.09.055&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1836732573%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1836732573&rft_id=info:pmid/27815105&rft_els_id=S027823911630920X&rfr_iscdi=true |