Comparison in the anesthetic efficacy of buccal, buccal plus palatal infiltration of 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine buccal infiltration in vital symptomatic maxillary molars: a prospective double blind randomized clinical trial.
Trial Snapshot
- Phase
- Not Applicable
- Status
- Not yet recruiting
- Sponsor
- Enrollment
- 60
- Locations
- 1
- Primary Endpoint
- Buccal infiltration injection alone effective in the maxillary molars pulpal anesthesia
Study Overview
Brief Summary
The purpose of present study will plane the role of supplemental palatal infiltration or 4% articaine on the success rate of pulpal anesthesia of maxillary molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Sixty six adult volunteer subjects will be selected from dental OPD. The subjects should be actively experiencing pain and in good health, and none will be taking any medication that would alter pain perception. The patients were randomly divided into three groups (GROUP I, II, III) twenty each. Patients will mark their pretreatment pain on a 170-mm HP VAS (12). Patients will receive in GROUP I: buccal infiltration1 of 1.8 mL lidocaine plus dummy palatal injection (BL), GROUP II) buccal plus palatal infiltrations of 2 mL lidocaine (BLL) and GROUP III buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL articaine plus dummy lingual injection (BA). The patients will be asked to rate their pain on HP VAS after 20 minutes of the infiltration during the conventional access opening procedure after rubber dam application. Success will be defined as no pain or weak/mild pain during endodontic access preparation and instrumentation (Heft-Parker VAS score<55mm). Age with initial and post injection pain of the subjects will be evaluated using multiple comparison analyses of variance (Kruskal-Wallis) and t tests at P < .05. Anesthetic success of all groups will be compared by using nonparametric chi-square χ2 test.
Study Design
- Study Type
- Interventional
- Allocation
- Computer generated randomization
- Masking
- Participant, Investigator and Outcome Assessor Blinded
Eligibility Criteria
- Ages
- 18.00 Year(s) to 50.00 Year(s) (—)
- Sex
- All
Inclusion Criteria
- •The inclusion criteria for the study were as follows: moderate to severe pain in the maxillary first molar, a prolonged response to cold testing with an ice stick and an electric pulp tester (Kerr Pulp Tester; Analytic Technology Corp, Redmond, WA), the absence of any periapical radiolucency on radiographs except for a widened periodontal ligament, a vital coronal pulp on access opening, and the ability of the subject to understand the use of pain scales.
- •The subjects were in good health, and none were taking any medication that would alter pain perception, as determined by oral questioning and a written questionnaire.
Exclusion Criteria
- •The exclusion criteria for the study were as follows: subjects younger than 18 years of age or older than 50 years of age, any known sensitivity to either 2% lidocaine or 4% articaine or epinephrine, patients having active pain in more than 1 maxillary molar, subject taking any pain-relieving medication including over-the-counter analgesics at least 12 hours before enrollment in the study, and swelling near the tooth in question and having a tooth not suitable for simple restorative treatment because of extensive caries or periodontal problems.
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
Buccal infiltration injection alone effective in the maxillary molars pulpal anesthesia
Time Frame: 2 hours
Secondary Outcomes
- 3.4% articaine with adrenaline is more effective than 2% lidocaine with adrenaline as an infiltration anaesthetic(2 hours)