this study evaluated the anesthetic efficacy in mandibular molars of 4% articaine buccal infiltrations (BI) (G1) or 2% lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) (G2), both solutions with 1:100.000 epinephrine. Likewise, we evaluated the efficacy of the initial technique (BI OR IANB) and one supplemental injection (intraligamentary infiltration with articaine for G1 or BI with articaine for G2) and the relation of anesthetic efficacy of articaine with buccal cortical thickness and mesial and distal root distance to buccal cortical in cone beam tomographies.
Method:
50 volunteers with a clinical diagnostic of irreversible pulpits were randomized into two experimental groups (30 from group 1 and 20 from group 2). All patients were instructed to assess their pain in a visual analogue scale (VAS) before treatment, after cold testing and 5 and 10 minutes after the injection. Success criteria were recorded only when the volunteer did not feel any pain during the emergency treatment with only the initial anesthesia or after adding one supplemental injection.
Result:
G1 (40%) presented higher success rate than G2 (10%) (p=0.0264) but no statistic difference when the initial technique and one supplemental injection were compared (p=1.0000) between groups. When analyzed inside each group, the success rate with one suplemmental anesthesia was statistically higher in both groups (G1;p=0.0379; G2; p=0.0001). Yet, no statistical difference was observed in tomography evaluation between articaine efficacy and buccal cortical thickness in mesial and distal root or between articaine efficacy and mesial and distal root distance to the buccal cortical (p>0.05).
Conclusion:
Articaine BI was superior to Lidocaine IANB effectiveness with the initial technique and buccal cortical thickness and the mesial and distal root distance had no relationship to the articaine anesthetic efficacy.