Anesthetic Efficacy of 1.8 ml Versus 3.6 ml of 4% Articaine Buccal Infiltration
Study Details
Study Description
Brief Summary
The aim of the study is to compare the anesthetic efficacy and need for supplemental anesthesia of 1.8 ml compared to 3.6 ml of 4% articaine buccal infiltration in mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.
| Condition or Disease | Intervention/Treatment | Phase |
|---|---|---|
|
N/A |
Detailed Description
Patients with moderate-to-severe pain due to symptomatic irreversible pulpitis will be included. Patients will be randomly assigned into two groups to receive either 1.8 ml 4% articaine buccal infiltration or 3.6. ml 4% articaine buccal infiltration before single visit root canal treatments. Intraoperative pain will be assessed using an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS) so that anesthetic success will be defined as no to mild intraoperative pain. The need for supplemental anesthesia will also be recorded.
Study Design
Arms and Interventions
| Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
|---|---|
| Active Comparator: 1.8 ml 4% articaine buccal infiltration.
|
Drug: 1.8 ml 4% Articaine hydrochloride
1.8 ml 4% articaine buccal infiltration
|
| Experimental: 3.6 ml 4% articaine buccal infiltration
|
Drug: 3.6 ml 4% Articaine hydrochloride
3.6 ml 4% articaine buccal infiltration
|
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
- Anesthetic success [During the procedure]
Will be measured by 11-point numerical rating scale NRS. The success will be defined as no or mild pain (NRS 0 or less than 3) and the failure will be defined as moderate to severe pain (NRS more than 3).
Secondary Outcome Measures
- Need for supplemental anesthesia [During the procedure]
Whether the patient requires supplemental anesthesia or not. It will be recorded by the questionnaire (yes or no).
Eligibility Criteria
Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
-
Healthy patients who are categorized as I or II according to The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA class I or II).
-
No sex predilection
-
Patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis
-
Patient with the ability to understand and use pain scales.
-
Patients who accept to enroll in the study.
Exclusion Criteria:
-
Patients' allergies to any of the drugs or materials used in the study.
-
Pregnant and lactating females.
-
Patients taking analgesics in the last 6-8 hours.
-
Patients having more than one symptomatic tooth in the same quadrant
Contacts and Locations
Locations
No locations specified.Sponsors and Collaborators
- Cairo University
Investigators
None specified.Study Documents (Full-Text)
None provided.More Information
Publications
- Abazarpoor R, Parirokh M, Nakhaee N, Abbott PV. A Comparison of Different Volumes of Articaine for Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block for Molar Teeth with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis. J Endod. 2015 Sep;41(9):1408-11. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.05.015. Epub 2015 Jul 3.
- Monteiro MR, Groppo FC, Haiter-Neto F, Volpato MC, Almeida JF. 4% articaine buccal infiltration versus 2% lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block for emergency root canal treatment in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpits: a randomized clinical study. Int Endod J. 2015 Feb;48(2):145-52. doi: 10.1111/iej.12293. Epub 2014 May 22.
- Poorni S, Veniashok B, Senthilkumar AD, Indira R, Ramachandran S. Anesthetic efficacy of four percent articaine for pulpal anesthesia by using inferior alveolar nerve block and buccal infiltration techniques in patients with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial. J Endod. 2011 Dec;37(12):1603-7. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.09.009.
- CU-Endo.23.10.23