UNASSIGNED: The aim of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine, 0.5% bupivacaine and 0.5% ropivacaine (with 1:200,000 adrenaline) during surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars.
UNASSIGNED: The study included 75 patients randomly divided into three equal groups of 25 patients each. The study variables were: onset of anesthetic action, duration of surgery and anesthesia and postoperative analgesia. A visual analog scale was used to assess pain at different time intervals. Statistical analysis revealed insignificant difference among groups in terms of volume of anesthetic solution used, quality of anesthesia, surgical difficulty and duration of surgery.
UNASSIGNED: The mean onset time was significantly (P < 0.001) shorter for articaine (1.14 min) than ropivacaine (2.18 min) and bupivacaine (2.33 min). However, the duration of anesthesia as well as analgesia was significantly (P < 0.001) longer for bupivacaine (483.6 min and 464 min) and ropivacaine (426.6 min and 459 min) as compared to articaine (232.8 min and 191.4 min), respectively. Also, on comparing three groups pain scores at 6th postoperative hour were significant (P < 0.01).
UNASSIGNED: Ropivacaine and bupivacaine can be safely used in patients where longer duration of surgery is anticipated.

OBJECTIVE: This trial aimed to study the efficacy of articaine in pain management during endodontic procedures in pediatric patients.
METHODS: Ninety-eight children who received endodontic painless treatment were collected and randomly divided into the control group and observation group, with 49 cases in each group. The control group received infiltration anesthesia with lidocaine, and the observation group received infiltration anesthesia with articaine. Anesthesia effect, anesthesia onset time, sensory recovery time, duration of anesthesia, pain intensity, blood pressure, heart rate, and adverse reactions were compared.
RESULTS: The effective rate of anesthesia in the observation group was higher than that in the control group. The anesthesia onset time and sensory recovery time were shorter, the duration of anesthesia was longer, and the VAS score and facial expression score were lower in the observation group than in the control group. The heart rate of the observation group was lower, and diastolic blood pressure was higher than those of the control group. The total incidence of adverse reactions in the observation group was lower than that in the control group.
CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of dental pulp diseases in children, the use of articaine can achieve better anesthesia effect and rapid onset of anesthesia and has less impact on the patient\'s blood pressure and heart rate, but it also can relieve pain and has good safety after the use of medication. It is worthy of clinical application.

Purpose: The safety and efficacy of a novel topical ocular anesthetic (AG-920 sterile ophthalmic solution, 8%) was previously evaluated in adults. For both clinical and regulatory purposes, this new agent was evaluated in children. Methods: This was a Phase 3, randomized, active-controlled, single-masked, parallel-group design study in healthy pediatric subjects performed at a private practice retina clinic in the United States. The safety and anesthetic efficacy of AG-920 was compared with proparacaine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.5% in 60 children undergoing ophthalmic examinations. The primary efficacy endpoint was whether the investigator was able to perform the eye examination. Results: In all subjects in each treatment group, the investigator was able to perform the eye examination without additional local anesthetic. There were no adverse events reported in this study. In both the study eye and fellow eye, there were no notable changes after dosing, and both treatment groups were similar. All external eye exams in all subjects in both treatment groups were normal. Conclusions: In this pediatric population aged 7 months to >11 years, AG-920 was therapeutically equivalent to marketed proparacaine with respect to having an ophthalmic examination performed without needing additional local anesthetic. Further, AG-920 was well tolerated, and there were no clinically significant safety findings.

BACKGROUND: To compare acceptance and preference of topical lidocaine gel anesthesia with articaine injection anesthesia in patients with moderate periodontitis undergoing scaling and root debridement.
METHODS: Ninety-one patients completed this randomized multicenter split-mouth controlled study and underwent two separate periodontal treatment sessions on different days, one with a topical intrapocket lidocaine gel application and the other with an articaine injection anesthesia in a different order depending on randomization. Parameters measured were the patients\' preference for topical lidocaine gel anesthesia or injection anesthesia with articaine (primary efficacy criterion), their maximum and average pain, and their intensity of numbness as well as experience of side effects; the probing depth; and the dentists\' preference and their evaluations of handling/application, onset and duration of anesthetic effect, and patient compliance.
RESULTS: After having experienced both alternatives, 58.3% of the patients preferred the topical lidocaine gel instillation into the periodontal pockets. The safety profile of the lidocaine gel differed positively from the safety profile of articaine injection in type and frequency of adverse drug reactions. The dentists\' acceptance and preference regarding either anesthetic method studied were balanced.
CONCLUSIONS: Instillation of lidocaine gel into the periodontal pocket is a preferred alternative to injection anesthesia for most of the patients and an equivalent alternative for dentists in nonsurgical periodontal therapy.

UNASSIGNED: The objective of this research was to conduct a comparison and evaluate the pain perception and time of onset of 2% lignocaine 1:80,000 epinephrine with 4% articaine 1:100,000 epinephrine in the pediatric population.
UNASSIGNED: A split-mouth randomized control trial was conducted on 50 children aged 9-14 years who required inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) anesthesia for bilateral dental treatment in the mandibular arch. The time of onset was recorded when no sensation was reported even when maximum electrical stimulus was applied in an electric pulp testing (EPT). The pain perception was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) rated by the patient for subjective symptoms and face, legs, activity, cry, and consolability (FLACC) scale for objective pain rated by the operator.
UNASSIGNED: The mean onset of time, pain-VAS, and FLACC score decreased by 1.31, 12.07, and 18.39%, respectively in 4% articaine as compared to 2% lignocaine but the difference did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05), that is, found to be statistically the same.In conclusion, it can be inferred that the utilization of 4% articaine is as potent as 2% lignocaine solution but showed slightly better onset of anesthesia and pain experience among the children although the findings were not statistically significant.
UNASSIGNED: Local anesthesia (LA) is one of the main methods of pain management in pediatric practice which makes it essential to choose an LA agent with a shorter time of onset and less pain on administration.
UNASSIGNED: Singh SS, Koul M. A Comparative Evaluation of Pain Experience and Time of Onset of 2% Lignocaine and 4% Articaine in Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block among Pediatric Population: A Clinical Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024;17(1):67-71.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the anesthetic efficacy of articaine with the needle-free/Comfort-in™ method compared to the conventional needle method. To assess pain during anesthesia application, onset of anesthesia and patient`s self-reported quality of life-related to oral health after the dental emergency appointment.
METHODS: This parallel, randomized clinical trial was conducted by a single operator/dentist in the state of Maranhao, northeast of Brazil. Included participants were adult dental patients with one molar (maxillary) or premolar (maxillary or mandibular) tooth diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. The primary outcome was the anesthetic efficacy, measured using a combination of electrical and cold pulp tests (cold + EPT) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes were pain during anesthesia application, onset of anesthesia, and patient`s quality-of-life (measured with the OHIP-14).
RESULTS: 62 patients were randomized in the anesthesia needle-free group and Comfort-in group (34.26 ± 10.786 × 33.29 ± 8.399 years old, respectively). The group of patients in the Comfort-in group had 71.0% success. Patients from the Comfort-in group reported statistically lower pain during the anesthesia application than patients from the conventional group (2.13 ± 2.172 × 6.03 ± 3.146 NRS scores, respectively) as well as immediately after the anesthetic procedure. Patients self-reported negative impact in quality of life was similar between groups before (p > 0.05) and after (p > 0.05) the dental emergency.
CONCLUSIONS: Comfort-in™ had similar efficacy to the conventional needle method.
CONCLUSIONS: This trial showed that it is possible to anesthetize patients with tooth pulpits without using needles to provide comfort mainly to anxious patients.

UNASSIGNED: The inability in achieving complete pulpal anesthesia with standard buccal infiltration especially in cases with SIP used for maxillary teeth. The study aimed to compare the anesthetic efficacy of buccal and buccal plus palatal infiltration technique using 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine in permanent maxillary first molars with the diagnosis of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP).
UNASSIGNED: One hundred and twenty-three patients with clinical diagnosis of SIP, aged 18-50 years were randomly allocated to three treatment groups (N = 41). Group 1(BIL): Buccal infiltration technique using 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline. Group 2(BPIL): combination of buccal plus palatal infiltration using 2% Lidocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline. Group 3(BIA): Buccal infiltration using 4% articaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline. Pain intensity of patients were recorded before and after the administration of local anesthesia during endodontic procedure that is during caries removal, access preparation and pulp removal using Heft-Parker Visual Analog Scale (HP-VAS). Success was defined by \"no pain (0 mm)\" or \"mild pain (0-54 mm)\" during endodontic procedure. The anesthetic efficacy rates were analyzed using chi-square tests, age differences using one-way ANOVA.
UNASSIGNED: The final analysis included total of 117 patients. Higher success was observed in group II (85%) in comparison to group I (69%) and group III (74%), but the difference was statistically nonsignificant (p > 0.05). Our results demonstrated a nonsignificant difference between genders in all three groups (p > 0.05).
UNASSIGNED: The use of buccal plus palatal infiltration and 4% articaine can provide effective anesthesia as standard buccal infiltration and 2% lidocaine for patients with SIP in maxillary first molars.

UNASSIGNED: The benefits of topical pharyngeal anesthesia for gastroscopy remain under debate. Articaine, a local anesthetic with fast onset and offset of action as well as low systemic toxicity, could be a promising choice for topical anesthesia. The objective of this study was to assess whether topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine is beneficial in sedated gastroscopy.
UNASSIGNED: This randomized double-blinded cross-over study included nine volunteers who underwent two gastroscopies under conscious sedation. One was performed with topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine and the other with placebo. Hemodynamic parameters including autonomic nervous system state were recorded prior to and during the endoscopic procedure. The endoscopist and the volunteer assessed the endoscopy after the examination.
UNASSIGNED: Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine resulted in less discomfort during esophageal intubation and higher patient satisfaction with the procedure. Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine did not increase satisfaction or facilitate the procedure as rated by the endoscopist. There were no clinically relevant differences in hemodynamic parameters.
UNASSIGNED: The use of articaine for topical pharyngeal anesthesia results in less intubation-related discomfort and better satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE: The absolute necessity of a palatal injection for the extraction of primary maxillary molars has never been explored, despite the fact that it is widely known that children do not tolerate local anesthetic injections into the palatal tissue well. The aim of this study was to compare separately the perception of pain in the absence of palatal injection after anesthesia and maxillary primary molar tooth extraction using different anesthetic solutions and different post-anesthetic waiting times.
METHODS: A single-blinded randomized controlled study was conducted in 78 participants (26 patients with palatal anesthesia (the control groups), and 26 patients with 5 min and 26 patients with 8 min post-anesthetic waiting time without palatal anesthesia (the study groups)). Subjective experiences of pain were evaluated separately after anesthesia and tooth extraction using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBS).
RESULTS: In terms of VAS scores obtained following administration of anesthesia, there was a statistically significant difference between the groups (p<0.05). VAS pain scores were reported to be lower in the groups without palatal anesthesia than in the groups with palatal anesthesia. No statistically significant difference was observed in VAS and Wong-Baker scores after tooth extraction between the groups with and without palatal anesthesia (P>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: While the pain reported following administration of anesthesia was found to be higher in the groups receiving palatal anesthesia, no difference was found between the groups in the pain reported after tooth extraction.
CONCLUSIONS: Extraction of maxillary primary molars is possible without palatal injection by injecting 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine into the buccal vestibule of the tooth with a waiting time of 5 or 8 min.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies on intraosseous (IO) anesthesia as a primary injection have shown high success rates. The TuttleNumbNow (TNN; Orem, UT) is a new primary IO injection technique that has not been scientifically evaluated. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective randomized, crossover study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of the TNN IO technique using the Septoject Evolution needle (Septodont, Saint-Maur-des-Fosses, France) compared with buccal infiltration for pulpal anesthesia in mandibular first molars.
METHODS: One hundred four healthy subjects were randomly assigned to 2 treatment groups separated by at least 2 weeks. One set of injections consisted of buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar using 1.8 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine followed by a mock TNN injection distal to the mandibular first molar. The other set of injections was a mock buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar followed by a TNN injection of 1.8 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine distal to the mandibular first molar. Statistical analyses were performed.
RESULTS: For the mandibular first molar, which had a 42% anesthetic success rate (highest 80 reading) with buccal infiltration compared with 49% with the TNN, no statistically significant difference in success was observed (P = .2115).
CONCLUSIONS: The TNN technique has been advocated as an IO injection. However, the inability to deliver anesthetic solution to the cancellous bone resulted in an anesthetic success rate of 49%. The success was statistically similar to a buccal infiltration (42%) and would not provide adequate pulpal anesthesia as a primary injection.