Pd_f_s_2013en01_journal_of_endodontics_2013_dressman (2)

CONSORT Randomized Clinical Trial

Anesthetic Efficacy of a Primary Articaine Infiltration and
a Repeat Articaine Infiltration in the Incisive/Mental Nerve
Region of Mandibular Premolars: A Prospective,
Randomized, Single-blind Study
Anna Smothers Dressman, DMD, MS,* John Nusstein, DDS, MS,† Melissa Drum, DDS, MS,†
and Al Reader, DDS, MS†
Abstract
Introduction: The authors conducted a prospective,
randomized, single-blind study to determine the degree
of pulpal anesthesia obtained with a primary infiltration
of 1 cartridge of articaine in the incisive/mental nerve
region of the mandibular second premolar and to determine the anesthetic efficacy of a repeat articaine infiltration 20 minutes after the primary infiltration. Methods:
One hundred asymptomatic adult subjects randomly
received 2 sets of injections consisting of a primary
mandibular second premolar infiltration of 1 cartridge
of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine plus a repeat
infiltration 20 minutes later (using the same volume of
articaine) or a mock repeat infiltration in 2 separate
appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. The authors
used an electric pulp tester to test the first molar, premolars, canine, and incisors for anesthesia in 4-minute
cycles for 120 minutes. Results: The success rates of
the initial infiltrations for the first molar, canine, and
incisor teeth ranged from 59% to 19%. The premolar
success rates were moderately successful (ie, 80%–
87%), but anesthesia declined after 20–25 minutes.
The repeat infiltration at 20 minutes significantly
increased the success rate (92%–94%) and the duration
of pulpal anesthesia for the premolars. Conclusions:
The initial infiltration was not effective in anesthetizing
the first molar, canine, or incisor teeth and was only
moderately successful in the premolars. Although the
repeat infiltration significantly increased the success
rate and duration in the premolars, the initial infiltration
success rates were not high enough to support the use
of this regimen as a combined anesthetic technique. (J
Endod 2013;39:313–318)

Key Words
Articaine, incisive/mental nerve block, infiltration,
mandibular, repeat infiltration

T

he incisive/mental nerve block has been studied by a number of authors (1–4).
Essentially, all these studies have found that injecting into or outside the incisive/
mental foramen resulted in a moderate success rate (no subject response to an 80
reading with an electric pulp tester) of 81% for the second premolar and 83% for
the first premolar. However, it did not predictably anesthetize the first molar (55%
success), canine (56% success), lateral incisor (38% success), or central incisor
(27% success). Although referred to as a nerve block, the incisive nerve is not
effectively blocked anterior to the premolars. Perhaps, it is more accurate to refer to
this injection technique as an infiltration in the incisive/mental foramen area.
A number of studies have shown the superiority of 4% articaine with 1:100,000
epinephrine compared with 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine when used as
a primary buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar (5–9). Only 1 study (4)
compared articaine with lidocaine when administering an incisive/mental nerve infiltration. Batista da Silva et al (4) compared the anesthetic efficacy of 0.6 mL 4% articaine
with 1:100,000 epinephrine with 0.6 mL 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and
found that articaine had higher success rates (no subject response to 2 consecutive 80
readings) (72% first premolar and 80% second premolar) than lidocaine (50% first
premolar and 70% second premolar), but the anesthetic duration was only 10 minutes
with lidocaine and 20 minutes with articaine. Longer durations of pulpal anesthesia for
the incisive/mental nerve infiltration have been reported using 1.8 mL 2% lidocaine with
1:100,000 epinephrine and 1.8 mL 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine (1, 2).
However, the duration of the anesthetic was only around 30 minutes (1, 2).
Pabst et al (10) found that a repeat infiltration of 1 cartridge of 4% articaine with
1:100,000 epinephrine 25 minutes after the initial buccal infiltration of the mandibular
first molar prolonged the duration of pulpal anesthesia. Perhaps, a similar effect would
be observed in the premolars.
No objective study of a primary infiltration of a full cartridge of articaine in the
incisive/mental nerve region of the mandibular premolars has been reported. Because
of the superiority of articaine over lidocaine in mandibular infiltrations (5–9), we
anticipated higher success rates of infiltration in the incisive/mental region than have
been shown with lidocaine (1–4). Additionally, no study has addressed the use of
repeat infiltration to increase the duration of pulpal anesthesia for the premolars.
The objective would be to have complete pulpal anesthesia within 5 to 10 minutes of
injection and have an anesthetic duration of 60 minutes. Therefore, the purpose of
this prospective, randomized, single-blind, crossover study was to determine the degree
of pulpal anesthesia obtained with a primary buccal infiltration of 1 cartridge of

From *Private Practice, Dayton and Mason, Ohio; and †Division of Endodontics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Address requests for reprints to Dr Al Reader, Division of Endodontics, College of Dentistry, The Ohio State University, 305 West 12th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210.
E-mail address: reader.2@osu.edu
0099-2399/$ - see front matter
Copyright ª 2013 American Association of Endodontists.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2012.11.039

JOE — Volume 39, Number 3, March 2013

Primary and Repeat Mandibular Premolar Anesthesia

313

articaine in the incisive/mental nerve region of the mandibular second
premolar and to determine the anesthetic efficacy of a repeated
articaine infiltration 20 minutes after the primary infiltration. We
also recorded the pain associated with the injection and postoperative
pain.

Materials and Methods
One hundred adult subjects participated in this study. All subjects
were in good health and were not taking any medication that would alter
pain perception as determined by a written health history and oral questioning. Exclusion criteria were as follows: younger than 18 years of age
or older than 65 years of age, allergies to local anesthetics or sulfites,
pregnancy, a history of significant medical conditions (American
Society of Anesthesiologists class II or higher), taking any medications
(ie, over-the-counter pain-relieving medications, narcotics, sedatives,
antianxiety, or antidepressant medications) that may affect anesthetic
assessment, active sites of pathosis in the area of injection, and the
inability to give informed consent. The Ohio State University Human
Subjects Review Committee approved the study, and written informed
consent was obtained from each subject.
Using a crossover design, 100 subjects received 2 sets of injections
consisting of a primary mandibular second premolar infiltration of
1 cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (Septocaine;
Septodont, New Castle, DE) plus a repeat infiltration at the same site
20 minutes later using 1 cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000
epinephrine and a primary mandibular second premolar infiltration
of 1 cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine plus a repeat
mock infiltration at the same site 20 minutes later in 2 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. With the crossover design, 200 sets
of infiltrations were administered, and each subject served as his/her
own control. The sets of infiltrations were equally balanced between
the left and right sides. The same side chosen for the first set of infiltrations was used again for the second set of infiltrations. The test teeth
chosen for the experiment were the mandibular first molar, second
premolar, first premolar, canine, lateral, and central incisors. The
mandibular, contralateral canine was used as the control to ensure
that the pulp tester was operating properly and that the subject was responding appropriately. Visual and clinical examinations were conducted to ensure that all teeth were free of caries, large restorations, crowns,
and periodontal disease and that none had a history of trauma or
sensitivity.
At both appointments before the infiltrations, the experimental
teeth and the contralateral canines (control) were tested 2 times with
the electric pulp tester (Kerr; Analytic Technology Corp, Redmond,
WA) to ensure tooth vitality and obtain baseline information. The teeth
were isolated with cotton rolls and dried with gauze. Toothpaste was
applied to the probe tip, which was placed in the middle third of the
buccal or labial surface of the tooth being tested. The value at the initial
sensation was recorded. The current rate was set at 25 seconds to
increase from no output (0) to the maximum output (80). Trained
personnel who were blinded to the infiltrations administered all preinjection and postinjection tests.
Before the experiment, the 2 sets of infiltrations were randomly
assigned 6-digit numbers from a random number table. Each subject
was randomly assigned to the 2 sets of infiltrations to determine which
set was to be administered at each appointment. Only the random
numbers were recorded on the data collection sheets to further blind
the experiment.
Before the infiltrations were administered, each subject was instructed on how to rate the pain for each phase of the injection (ie, needle insertion, needle placement, and deposition of anesthetic solution)
314

Dressman et al.

using a 170 mm Heft-Parker visual analog scale (VAS) (11). The VAS
was divided into 4 categories. No pain corresponded to 0 mm. Mild
pain was defined as greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 54
mm. Mild pain included the descriptors of faint, weak, and mild
pain. Moderate pain was defined as greater than 54 mm and less
than 114 mm. Severe pain was defined as equal to or greater than
114 mm. Severe pain included the descriptors of strong, intense, and
maximum possible. During each phase of the initial, repeat, or
mock infiltrations, the principal investigator informed the subject
when each phase of the injection was complete. Immediately after
the infiltration, the subject rated the pain for each injection phase on
the VAS.
Before each injection, the mucosa was dried, and 0.2 mL topical
anesthetic gel (20% benzocaine; Patterson Dental Supply, Inc, St Paul,
MN) was passively placed with a cotton tip applicator for 60 seconds at
the injection site. A mandibular second premolar infiltration was administered using a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and a standard aspirating syringe equipped with a 27-G 1½-inch
needle. All anesthetic cartridges were checked to ensure that the anesthetic solution had not expired. The needle was gently placed into the
alveolar mucosa (needle insertion). The direction of needle insertion
was from a superior, anterior, and lateral direction into the alveolar
mucosa of the buccal vestibule. The needle was advanced (needle placement) within 2–3 seconds until the needle was estimated to approximate the incisive canal as outlined by Nist et al (1). No attempt was
made to enter the incisive canal. No anesthetic solution was deposited
during needle placement. The anesthetic solution was deposited over
a period of 1 minute (solution deposition phase). Immediately after
the infiltration, finger pressure was applied over the infiltration site
for 1 minute.
At 20 minutes after the initial infiltration, the repeat infiltration or
mock infiltration was administered in the manner described for the
initial infiltration and at the same site. For the mock infiltration, the
part of the needle that engaged the anesthetic cartridge inside the
syringe was bent over so it could not penetrate the rubber diaphragm
of the cartridge. Therefore, no anesthetic solution could be deposited.
For the repeat and mock infiltrations, a new 27-G needle was attached to
the syringe. When the repeat infiltration was given, a full cartridge of articaine was deposited over a period of 1 minute at the target site. For the
mock infiltration, once the needle reached the target site, the needle was
held in position for 1 minute to mimic the time of the solution deposition. All subjects were blindfolded during both the repeat and mock
infiltrations. All initial and repeat infiltrations were administered by
the senior author (ASD).
The depth of anesthesia was monitored with the electric pulp
tester. At 1 minute after the initial infiltration injection, pulp test readings were obtained for the mandibular first molar and second premolar.
At 2 minutes, the first premolar and canine were tested. At 3 minutes, the
lateral and central incisors were tested, and at 4 minutes the contralateral control canine was tested. The testing continued in 4-minute cycles
for a total of 20 minutes. At every fourth cycle, the control tooth, the
contralateral canine, was tested by an inactivated electric pulp tester
to test the reliability of the subject. If the subject responded positively
to an inactivated pulp tester, then they were not reliable and could
not be used in the study. At minute 20, the repeat infiltration or
mock infiltration was given. Pulp testing resumed at the 24th minute
repeating in cycles of 4 minutes for 120 minutes.
All subjects were asked to complete postinjection pain surveys
using the same VAS as previously described after each appointment,
immediately after the numbness wore off, and again each morning
upon rising for the next 3 days. Patients were also instructed to describe
and record any problems they experienced.

No response from the subject at the maximum output (80
reading) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Anesthetic success was the total number of subjects with an
80 reading. The time for the onset of pulpal anesthesia was recorded
as the first of 2 consecutive 80 readings. With a nondirectional alpha
risk of 0.05 and a power of 85%, a sample size of 95 subjects was
required to show a difference in anesthetic success of Æ20 percentage
points.
Comparisons between the primary infiltrations and repeat infiltrations for anesthetic success and the incidence of anesthesia (80/80
readings) were made using multiple McNemar exact tests adjusted using
the step-down Bonferroni method of Holm. Between-group comparisons for needle insertion pain, needle placement pain, solution deposition pain, and postoperative pain were made using analysis of variance
with the Tukey-Kramer multiple-comparison test. Comparisons were
considered significant at P < .05.

Results
One hundred adult subjects, 50 men and 50 women ranging in age
from 20 to 42 years with an average age of 25 years, participated in this
study. Table 1 shows the percentages of successful pulpal anesthesia for
the initial infiltrations. The first molar and canine had success rates
ranging from 50% to 59%, and the lateral and central incisors had
success rates ranging from 19% to 25%. For the premolars, anesthetic
success ranged from 80% to 87%. There were no significant differences
between the 2 initial infiltrations for anesthetic success or the incidence
of anesthesia (percentage of 80 readings) across time for the first 20
minutes. The mean time of onset of pulpal anesthesia for the first
premolars was 6.2 minutes, and for the second premolar it was 5.2
minutes. No onset times were reported for the other teeth because of
the low number of anesthetic successes.
Table 2 presents the percentages of anesthetic success for the
repeat infiltration of articaine. The highest success rates were recorded
for the premolars (ie, 92%–94%). The incidence of pulpal anesthesia
(80 readings across time) for the initial infiltration plus the repeat infiltration of 1 cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or
mock infiltration is presented in Figure 1. Significant differences
(percentage of 80 readings) when compared with the initial infiltration
plus repeat articaine or mock infiltrations are reported in Table 2.
The pain of the initial infiltrations and repeat infiltrations are presented in Table 3. All mean pain ratings were in the mild category. Pain
ratings were very low for the repeat or mock infiltrations. Postoperative
pain ratings are presented in Table 4. All mean pain ratings were in the
mild category. Although there were no significant differences in pain of
injection between the initial plus repeat or the initial plus mock infiltrations, there were significant differences between the initial plus mock
and initial plus repeat infiltrations of articaine for postoperative pain
at each postoperative day. The postinjection complications reported
were initial tenderness (7%–19%) and slight subjective swelling

(1%–7%) in the area of the injection with decreasing percentages
over 3 days.

Discussion
The success rates of the initial 200 infiltrations in the incisive/
mental nerve region for the first molar, canine, and incisor teeth
confirm previous studies (1–4) of the ineffectiveness of this injection
technique in predictably anesthetizing these teeth (Table 1 and
Fig. 1). Although we were aware of these findings, no study had used
a full cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 for this injection, so it
was important to investigate its effect on these teeth. Clinically, the first
molar can be adequately anesthetized in asymptomatic teeth by
combining an inferior alveolar nerve block with a buccal infiltration
of a cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (12, 13)
or a supplemental intraosseous injection (14–17). Incisor teeth can
be successfully anesthetized by combining the inferior alveolar nerve
block with local infiltrations of articaine (1, 18–20).
The success rates of the 2 initial infiltrations were not significantly
different (Table 1). We would expect no difference because each infiltration was administered in an identical manner. The success rates of
the initial infiltration for the second premolar (80%–82%) (Table 1)
were similar to the success rates of Batista da Silva et al (4) at 80%
and Whitworth et al (3) at 79%–84% but higher than Joyce and Donnelly (2) at 74% and lower than the results of Nist et al (1) at 90%.
These previous studies evaluated the success of the incisive/mental
nerve block or infiltration at this site. Although the success rates
were moderately successful, complete anesthesia was not obtained.
The success rates of the initial infiltration for the first premolar
(87%, Table 1) were similar to the success rates of Whitworth et al
(3) at 79%–84% but higher than Joyce and Donnelly (2) at 78% and
Batista da Silva et al (4) at 72% and lower than the results of Nist
et al (1) at 100%. Generally, the success rates were higher than the
second premolar but would not ensure complete anesthesia in the first
premolar. Differences in premolar success rates among studies may
relate to using an anesthetic volume of 0.6 mL (4), 0.9 mL (2),
1.8 mL (1), or 2.0 mL (3); using anesthetic solutions of lidocaine
(1–3) versus articaine (4); entering the mental foramen (1, 2); and
population variation.
A major disadvantage with the initial infiltration in the premolars is
the decline of pulpal anesthesia after 20 minutes in the second premolar
and after approximately 25 minutes in the first premolar (Fig. 1). Other
authors (1, 3, 4) have also reported similar incidences of declining
pulpal anesthesia after an incisive/mental nerve block or infiltration
at this site.
A repeat infiltration at 20 minutes significantly increased the rate
success (92%–94%) and the duration of pulpal anesthesia for the
premolars (Table 2 and Fig. 1). Although a similar observation was
made in the first molar, canine, and incisors, success rates were not
high enough to predictably anesthetize these teeth (Table 2 and

TABLE 1. Percentages and Number of Subjects Who Experienced Anesthetic Success (within the first 20 minutes) for the 2 Initial Infiltrations of Articaine
Initial infiltration (%, n)
Second premolar*†
First premolar*†
First molar*
Canine*
Lateral incisor*
Central incisor*

Initial infiltration (%, n)

P value

82 (81/99)
87 (83/95)
54 (54/100)
53 (53/100)
25 (25/100)
20 (20/100)

80 (79/99)
87 (83/95)
59 (59/100)
50 (50/100)
23 (23/100)
19 (19/100)

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

*There were no significant differences (P > .05) between the 2 initial infiltrations.
†
Some teeth were missing because of orthodontic extractions.



315

TABLE 2. Percentages and Number of Subjects Who Experienced Anesthetic
Success with the Repeat Injection of Articaine and the Significant Differences
(percentage of 80 readings) When Comparing the Initial Infiltration Plus Mock
Infiltration with the Initial Infiltration Plus Repeat Articaine Infiltration
Repeat infiltration
(%, n)

Significant
differences (min)

92 (91/99)
94 (89/95)
79 (79/100)
76 (76/100)
42 (42/100)
30 (30/100)

28–116
37–117
28–96
29–97
30–78
34–62

Second premolar*
First premolar*
First molar
Canine
Lateral incisor
Central incisor

*Some teeth were missing because of orthodontic extractions.

Fig. 1). Previous studies by Pabst et al (10) and Scott et al (21) showed
a higher level of pulpal anesthesia after the administration of a repeat
infiltration. If the repeat infiltration provided the same effect as the initial
infiltration, we would not necessarily expect a higher incidence of
pulpal anesthesia. A drug’s enhanced effectiveness when given within
a reasonable time as anesthesia is close to wearing off is called augmentation (22, 23).
Judging from Figure 1, it took approximately 4–5 minutes for the
repeat infiltration to reach its full effect in the premolars. The duration
was significantly increased through the 116–117 minute (Table 2).
However, the clinical duration of an effect (sustained 80 readings at
the highest success rate) was operational through approximately 52

Initial + Repeated Infiltration

Initial + Mock Repeated Infiltration

P ercen ta g e o f 8 0 R ea d in g s

P ercen tag e o f 8 0 R ea d in g s

100

75
50
25
0


100


Percentage of 80 Readings


100

minutes in the premolars before pulpal anesthesia started to decline
(Fig. 1).
Although we anticipated higher success rates in the premolars with
the initial infiltration of articaine (because of its superiority over lidocaine in mandibular infiltrations) when the study was designed, it is
apparent that success rates were only moderate (Table 1 and Fig. 1).
Although the repeat infiltration significantly increased the success
rate and the duration in the premolars, the initial infiltration success
would have to be higher to have clinical usefulness. To increase success,
it may be advisable to administer an inferior alveolar nerve block and
then add an infiltration of articaine in the premolars. Nist et al (1), using
a lidocaine formulation, showed very good success rates and a duration
of 60 minutes when this regimen was used in the premolars. Because we
studied a young adult population, the results of this study may not apply
to children or the elderly.
We believed that it was important to first test the efficacy of articaine for anesthetizing the premolars in subjects with normal pulps.
If it had a clinical application in normal teeth, we could then apply
the methods for teeth with irreversible pulpitis. Because complete
pulpal anesthesia was not obtained initially in the premolars, the use
of articaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis may not be applicable.
The time of onset of pulpal anesthesia averaged 6.2 minutes for the
first premolar and 5.2 minutes for the second premolar. The onset
times for the adjacent teeth were not considered because of the clinically low number of anesthetic successes. The results of the current
study were similar to the 5.1-minute onset time for the premolars reported by Whitworth et al (3) using 2 mL 2% lidocaine with

75
50
25

75
50
25

0
1 13 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120


0
2

1 13 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 103 112

14 25 37 49 61 73 85 97 109 120

Time (Minutes)

Time (Minutes)

Time (Minutes)

First Molar

Second Premolar

First Premolar


P erc e n ta g e o f 8 0 R ea d in g s

P e rc e n ta g e o f 8 0 R e a d in g s

100


75
50
25
0

75
50
25

Time (Minutes)

Canine


75
50
25
0

0
2 14 25 37 49 61 73 85 97 109 120


100


P ercen ta g e o f 8 0 R ea d in g s


100

3 15 26 38 50 62 74 86 98 110 122

3

15 26 38 50 62 74 86 98 110 120

Time (Minutes)

Time (Minutes)

Lateral Incisor

Central Incisor

Figure 1. The incidence of pulpal anesthesia for the first molar, first and second premolars, canine, lateral, and central incisor as determined by a lack of response
to electrical pulp testing at the maximum setting (percentage of 80 readings) at each postinjection time interval for the initial infiltration of 1 cartridge of 4%
articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine plus a repeat infiltration at 20 minutes of 1 cartridge of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or a mock infiltration.

316

Dressman et al.


TABLE 3. Pain Ratings for Each Injection Phase for the Initial Infiltrations and Repeat Infiltrations of Articaine or Mock Infiltrations
Injection phase
Initial infiltrations*
Needle insertion†
Cartridge of articaine
Needle placement†
Solution deposition†
Repeat infiltrations
Needle insertion†
Mock articaine
Needle placement†
Mock articaine
Solution deposition†
Mock articaine

None (%, n)

Mild (%, n)

Moderate (%, n)

Severe (%, n)

Mean ± SD (mm)

10 (10/100)
9 (9/100)

80 (80/100)
80 (80/100)

10 (10/100)
11 (11/100)

0 (0/100)
0 (0/100)

31 Æ 20
31 Æ 21

27 (27/100)
33 (33/100)

64 (64/100)
59 (59/100)

9 (9/100)
8 (8/100)

0 (0/100)
0 (0/100)

26 Æ 23
22 Æ 25

21 (21/100)
22 (22/100)

61 (61/100)
56 (56/100)

18 (18/100)
22 (22/100)

0 (0/100)
0 (0/100)

32 Æ 28
34 Æ 28

96 (96/100)
96 (96/100)

4 (4/100)
4 (4/100)

0 (0/100)
0 (0/100)

0 (0/100)
0 (0/100)

0.4 Æ 2
0.6 Æ 4

94 (94/100)
97 (97/100)

6 (6/100)
3 (3/100)

0 (0/100)
0 (0/100)

0 (0/100)
0 (0/100)

0.8 Æ 3
0.4 Æ 3

94 (94/100)
94 (94/100)

6 (6/100)
6 (6/100)

0 (0/100)
0 (0/100)

0 (0/100)
0 (0/100)

0.7 Æ 3
1.3 Æ 7

SD, standard deviation.
*Initial infiltrations (first or second appointment).
†
There were no significant differences (P > .05) between the 2 sets of anesthetic infiltrations.

1:80,000 epinephrine for infiltration in the premolar region. However,
Batista da Silva et al (4) recorded faster onset times for the first
premolar (4 minutes) and the second premolar (2 minutes) using
0.6 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and a similar design
to the current study for delivering anesthetic solution in the premolar
region. Perhaps, differences in methodology or populations may
account for the different onset times.
The mean VAS pain values for the initial infiltration were all in the
mild range (Table 3). There was an incidence of 10%–11% moderate
pain for needle insertion, 8%–9% for needle placement, and 18%–22%
for solution deposition. There were no reports of severe pain. Nist et al
(1) reported a 5% incidence of moderate pain for needle insertion and
a 15% incidence of moderate pain and 3% incidence of severe pain for
solution deposition when administering the incisive nerve block within
the mental foramen. Joyce and Donnelly (2) reported an incidence of
27% moderate pain and a 2% incidence of severe pain for the incisive
nerve block using a patient questionnaire. Joyce and Donnelly did not
divide the injection into 3 phases. Whitworth et al (3) found a slow infiltration (60 seconds) in the incisive/mental nerve area was less painful
than a fast injection (10 seconds) for solution deposition. Their VAS
scores were lower (11.9–22.6 mm) than recorded in the current study

(32–34 mm) for solution deposition. Batista da Silva et al (4) reported
a 10% incidence of moderate injection pain using both articaine and
lidocaine formulations and a similar design to the current study for
delivering anesthetic solution in the premolar region. Therefore, there
is a potential for moderate pain of 8%–22% with an initial premolar
infiltration in the area of the incisive/mental nerve area. The repeat
or mock infiltrations had very low pain ratings (Table 3) because an
anesthetic effect had already been established by the initial infiltration.
Postinjection pain ratings were statistically different between the 2
sets of anesthetic injections for day 0 through day 3 (Table 4). More
postinjection pain was experienced with the repeat infiltration probably
because of the 2-cartridge volume. However, the mean pain ratings were
still in the mild pain range, and the incidence of pain decreased over the
3 days (Table 4). Pabst et al (10) and Martin et al (24) also reported
more postoperative pain when a 2-cartridge volume of articaine was
used for a repeat or initial buccal infiltration of the mandibular first
molar. Nist et al (1) reported a 2% incidence of postoperative pain
when administering the incisive nerve block within the mental foramen.
Joyce and Donnelly (2) reported an incidence of 7% moderate postoperative pain for the incisive nerve block using a patient questionnaire.
Batista da Silva et al (4) reported a 2% incidence of postinjection

TABLE 4. Postinjection Pain Ratings for the Initial Infiltration Plus the Repeat Articaine Infiltration and the Initial Infiltration Plus the Repeat Mock Infiltration
Injection Phase

None

Mild

Day 0* (the day of injection when soft-tissue anesthesia wore off)
Infiltration plus repeat infiltration
15 (15/100)
61 (61/100)
Infiltration plus mock infiltration
26 (26/100)
65 (65/100)
Day 1*
20 (20/100)
67 (67/100)
35 (35/100)
63 (63/100)
Day 2*
31 (31/100)
62 (62/100)
53 (53/100)
43 (43/100)
Day 3*
51 (51/100)
45 (45/100)
66 (66/100)
34 (34/100)

Moderate

Severe

Mean ± SD (mm)

24 (24/100)
9 (9/100)

0 (0/100)
0 (0/100)

39 Æ 29
24 Æ 22

13 (13/100)
2 (2/100)

0 (0/100)
0 (0/100)

31 Æ 24
19 Æ 19

7 (7/100)
4 (4/100)

0 (0/100)
0 (0/100)

39 Æ 29
24 Æ 22

4 (4/100)
0 (0/100)

0 (0/100)
0 (0/100)

39 Æ 29
24 Æ 22

*There were significant differences (P < .05) between the 2 sets of anesthetic infiltrations.



317

pain for an articaine formulation using a similar design to the current
study for delivering anesthetic solution in the premolar region. Therefore, there is potential for moderate pain of around 24% (Table 4) when
anesthesia wears off for a 2-cartridge volume of articaine with
decreasing moderate pain on days 1 (13%), 2 (7%), and 3 (4%).
Postinjection complications reported were initial tenderness
(7%–19%) and slight subjective swelling (1%–7%) in the area of the
injection. The higher percentages were associated with the repeat infiltration (2-cartridge volume) as also reported by Pabst et al (10) and
Martin et al (24). Nist et al (1) and Bastista da Silva et al (4) reported
no complications with the incisive nerve block. Joyce and Donnelly (2)
found 2 of 30 subjects had paresthesia after the injection. Although
there have been reports of paresthesia associated with articaine use
(25–28), no subjects reported any paresthesia in the current study
even though the injection site approximated the mental nerve.
In conclusion, the initial infiltration in the incisive/mental nerve
area was not effective in anesthetizing the first molar, canine, or incisor
teeth and was only moderately successful in the premolars. Although the
repeat infiltration significantly increased the success rate and the duration in the premolars, the initial infiltration success rates were not high
enough to support the use of this regimen as a combined anesthetic
technique.

Acknowledgments
The authors deny any conflicts of interest related to this study.

References
1. Nist R, Reader A, Beck M, et al. An evaluation of the incisive nerve block and combination inferior alveolar and incisive nerve blocks in mandibular anesthesia. J Endod
1992;18:455–9.
2. Joyce AP, Donnelly JC. Evaluation of the effectiveness and comfort of incisive nerve
anesthesia given inside or outside the mental foramen. J Endod 1993;19:409–11.
3. Whitworth JM, Kanaa MD, Corbett IP, et al. Influence of injection speed on the effectiveness of incisive/mental nerve block: a randomized, controlled, double-blind
study in adult volunteers. J Endod 2007;33:1149–54.
4. Batista da Silva C, Berto LA, Volpato MC, et al. Anesthetic efficacy of articaine and
lidocaine for incisive/mental nerve block. J Endod 2010;36:438–41.
5. Kanaa MD, Whitworth JM, Corbett IP, et al. Articaine and lidocaine mandibular
buccal infiltration anesthesia: a prospective randomized double-blind cross-over
study. J Endod 2006;32:296–8.
6. Robertson D, Nusstein J, Reader A, et al. The anesthetic efficacy of articaine in buccal
infiltration of mandibular posterior teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;138:1104–12.
7. Jung Y, Kim JH, Kim ES, et al. An evaluation of buccal infiltrations and inferior alveolar nerve blocks in pulpal anesthesia for mandibular first molars. J Endod 2008;
34:11–3.
8. Corbett IP, Kanaa MD, Whitworth JM, et al. Articaine infiltration for anesthesia of
mandibular first molars. J Endod 2008;34:514–8.

318

Dressman et al.

9. Abdulwahab M, Boynes S, Moore P, et al. The efficacy of six local anesthetic formulations used for posterior mandibular buccal infiltration anesthesia. J Am Dent
Assoc 2009;140:1018–24.
10. Pabst L, Nusstein J, Drum M, et al. The efficacy of a repeated buccal infiltration of
articaine in prolonging duration of pulpal anesthesia in the mandibular first molar.
Anesth Prog 2009;56:128–34.
11. Heft MW, Parker SR. An experimental basis for revising the graphic rating scale for
pain. Pain 1984;19:153–61.
12. Haase A, Reader A, Nusstein J, et al. Comparing anesthetic efficacy of articaine versus
lidocaine as a supplemental buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar after an
inferior alveolar nerve block. J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139:1228–35.
13. Kanaa MD, Whitworth JM, Corbett IP, et al. Articaine buccal infiltration enhances the
effectiveness of lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block. Int Endod J 2009;42:
238–46.
14. Dunbar D, Reader A, Nist R, et al. Anesthetic efficacy of the intraosseous injection
after an inferior alveolar nerve block. J Endod 1996;22:481–6.
15. Guglielmo A, Reader A, Nist R, et al. Anesthetic efficacy and heart rate effects of the
supplemental intraosseous injection of 2% mepivacaine with 1:20,000 levonordefrin. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999;87:284–93.
16. Gallatin E, Stabile P, Reader A, et al. Anesthetic efficacy and heart rate effects of the
intraosseous injection of 3% mepivacaine after an inferior alveolar nerve block. Oral
Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000;89:83–7.
17. Stabile P, Reader A, Gallatin E, et al. Anesthetic efficacy and heart rate effects of the
intraosseous injection of 1.5% etidocaine (1:200,000 epinephrine) after an inferior
alveolar nerve block. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000;89:
407–11.
18. Yonchak T, Reader A, Beck M, et al. Anesthetic efficacy of infiltrations in mandibular
anterior teeth. Anesth Prog 2001;48:55–60.
19. Nuzum FM, Drum M, Nusstein J, et al. Anesthetic efficacy of articaine for combination labial plus lingual infiltrations versus labial infiltration in the mandibular lateral
incisor. J Endod 2010;36:952–6.
20. Jaber A, Whitworth JM, Corbett IP, et al. The efficacy of infiltration anaesthesia for
adult mandibular incisors: a randomized double-blind cross-over trial comparing
articaine and lidocaine buccal and buccal plus lingual infiltrations. Br Dent J
2010;209:E16.
21. Scott J, Drum M, Reader A, et al. The efficacy of a repeated infiltration in prolonging
duration of pulpal anesthesia in maxillary lateral incisors. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;
140:318–24.
22. De Jong RH. Local Anesthetics. St Louis, MO: Mosby; 1994:243–244.
23. Choi RH, Birknes JK, Popitz-Bergez FA, et al. Pharmacokinetic nature of tachyphylaxis to lidocaine: peripheral nerve blocks and infiltration anesthesia in rats. Life Sci
1997;61:177–84.
24. Martin M, Nusstein J, Drum M, et al. 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. J Endod 2011;37:588–92.
25. Haas DA, Lennon D. A 21 year retrospective study of reports of paresthesia following
local anesthetic administration. J Can Dent Assoc 1995;61:319–320, 323–326,
329–330.
26. Gaffen AS, Haas DA. Retrospective review of voluntary reports of nonsurgical paresthesia in dentistry. J Can Dent Assoc 2009;75:579a–f.
27. Pogrel MA. Permanent nerve damage from inferior alveolar nerve blocks—an
update to include articaine. J Calif Dent Assoc 2007;35:271–3.
28. Garisto GA, Gaffen AS, Lawrence HP, et al. Occurrence of paresthesia after dental
local anesthetic administration in the United States. J Am Dent Assoc 2010;141:
836–44.


Pd_f_s_2013en01_journal_of_endodontics_2013_dressman (2)

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (17)

En vedette

En vedette (8)

Similaire à Pd_f_s_2013en01_journal_of_endodontics_2013_dressman (2)

Similaire à Pd_f_s_2013en01_journal_of_endodontics_2013_dressman (2) (20)

Plus de NaTa Pq

Plus de NaTa Pq (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Pd_f_s_2013en01_journal_of_endodontics_2013_dressman (2)