Anesthetic Efficacy of 1.8 mL versus 3.6 mL of 4% Articaine with 1:100,000 Epinephrine as a Primary Buccal Infiltration of the Mandibular First Molar

Abstract Introduction No study has compared 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in a mandibular buccal infiltration of the first molar. The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, single-blind, crossover study comparing the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with 1.8 mL...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of endodontics 2011-05, Vol.37 (5), p.588-592
Hauptverfasser: Martin, Matthew, MS, DDS, Nusstein, John, MS, DDS, Drum, Melissa, MS, DDS, Reader, Al, MS, DDS, Beck, Mike, MA, DDS
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Introduction No study has compared 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in a mandibular buccal infiltration of the first molar. The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, single-blind, crossover study comparing the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a primary infiltration in the mandibular first molar. Methods Eighty-six asymptomatic adult subjects randomly received a primary mandibular buccal first molar infiltration of 1.8 mL or 3.6 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in two separate appointments. The authors used an electric pulp tester to test the first molar for anesthesia in 3-minute cycles for 90 minutes after the injections. Results Compared with the 1.8-mL volume of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, the 3.6-mL volume showed a statistically higher success rate (70% vs 50%). Conclusions The anesthetic efficacy of 3.6 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine is better than 1.8 mL of the same anesthetic solution in a primary mandibular buccal infiltration of the first molar. However, the success rate of 70% is not high enough to support its use as a primary injection technique in the mandibular first molar.
ISSN:0099-2399
1878-3554
DOI:10.1016/j.joen.2011.01.001