Anesthetic efficacy of mental/incisive nerve block compared to inferior alveolar nerve block using 4% articaine in mandibular premolars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a randomized clinical trial

Ghabraei, Sholeh; Shubbar, Ashraf; Nekoofar, Mohammad H.; Nosrat, Ali

doi:10.1007/s00784-018-2500-4

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thirteen trials were the result of international cooperation between two countries, mostly United States and Iran ( n = 4), whilst only one trial reflected cooperation between the authors of three different countries, namely the United States, UK and Iran (Ghabraei et al . 2019). The relationship amongst the most prolific countries, authors and journals in which clinical trials were published are illustrated in a Sankey plot (Figure 4; Interactive version – Figure S2).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2018, Ghabraei et al . 2019) had two corresponding authors from different continents and were excluded from the analysis. Journal (Endodontic specialty vs. Non‐Endodontic specialty journals): No significant difference was observed between the Endodontic specialty and Non‐Endodontic specialty journals in terms of the quality of the reporting of clinical trials. Non‐Endodontic speciality journals (62%) were associated with the greatest percentage of ‘High’‐quality clinical reports compared to Endodontic speciality journals (38%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Critical analysis of the reporting quality of randomized trials within Endodontics using the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 quality standard checklist

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To critically evaluate the reporting quality of a random sample of clinical trials published in Endodontics against the PRIRATE 2020 checklist and to analyse the association between the quality of reported trials and a variety of parameters. Methodology Fifty randomized clinical trials relating to Endodontics were randomly selected from the PubMed database from 2015 to 2019 and evaluated by two independent reviewers. For each trial, a score of ‘1’ was awarded when it fully reported each item in the PRIRATE guidelines whereas a score of ‘0’ was awarded when an item was not reported; when the item was reported inadequately a score of ‘0.5’ was awarded. For the items that were not relevant to the trial, ‘Not Applicable (NA)’ was given. Based on the interquartile range of the overall scores received, trials were categorized into ‘Low’ (0–58.4%), ‘Moderate’ (58.5–72.8%) and ‘High’ (72.9–100%) quality. The associations between characteristics and quality of clinical trials were investigated. Descriptive statistics, frequency analysis and percentage analyses were used to describe the data. To determine the significance of categorical data, the chi‐square test was used. The probability value 0.05 was considered as the level of significance. Results Based on the overall scores, 13 (26%), 25(50%) and 12 (24%) of the reports of clinical trials were categorized as ‘High’, ‘Moderate’ and ‘Low’ quality, respectively. Three items (1b, 6d, 11e) were adequately reported in all manuscripts whilst two items (5k, 5m) were scored ‘NA’ in all the reports. The reports published from Europe had a significantly greater percentage of ‘High’‐quality scores, compared to Asia, Middle East, North America and South America (P = 0.0002). The ‘High’‐quality reports were published significantly more often in impact factor journals (P = 0.045). Reports of clinical trials published in journals that adhered to the CONSORT guidelines had significantly more ‘High’ scores compared to those that did not (P = 0.008). Clinical trials with protocols registered a priori had a significantly greater percentage of ‘High’ scores compared to the trials that were not registered in advance (P = 0.003). No significant difference occurred between the quality of clinical trials and the number of authors, journal (Endodontic specialty vs. Non‐Endodontic specialty) or year of publication. Conclusions Reports of randomized clinical trials published in the speciality of Endodontics had a substantial number of deficiencies. To create high‐quality reports of clinical trials, authors should comply with the PRIRATE 2020 guidelines.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical analysis of the reporting quality of randomized trials within Endodontics using the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 quality standard checklist

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The onset of anaesthesia was faster and pain on injection was significantly less when the MINB was used. However, post‐injection pain was higher compared with the IANB (Ghabraei et al, 2019). It has been reported that for anesthetizing mandibular incisor teeth with irreversible pulpitis, bilateral MINB with 2% lidocaine with 1:80 000 epinephrine significantly improved the success rate of anaesthesia compared to a unilateral MINB injection (Kumar et al, 2020).…”

Section: Anaesthetic Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Present status and future directions—Mechanisms and management of local anaesthetic failures

Parirokh

Abbott

2022

Int Endodontic J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To review variables and management techniques that may affect anaesthesia failure during root canal treatment and methods of overcoming anaesthesia failure. Methodology:The PubMed and Cochran databases were searched for evidencebased investigations regarding pain during needle insertion, pain on injection, efficacy of the anaesthetic solutions and anaesthesia techniques, and premedication.Results: Variables such as pain on injection, premedication with various types of drugs, volume of anaesthetic solutions, supplemental anaesthetic techniques, and additives to the anaesthetic solutions may influence pain perception during root canal treatment. Differences between teeth with healthy pulps versus those with irreversible pulpitis should be considered when the effects of variables are interpreted.However, there are several concerns regarding the methodology of investigations that have evaluated anaesthesia success rates. Conclusion:Several variables may influence anaesthesia success rates. There are conditions that may help to predict a patient's pain during endodontic procedures. These conditions could be overcome either by employing methods such as premedication with a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug prior to the treatment visit or by using supplementary techniques before or during the treatment. However, investigators need to be more careful when reporting details of their studies to reduce concerns regarding their study bias.

show abstract

“…Therefore, another technique with adequate anesthetic efficiency and low complexity is needed. Despite some studies have evaluated similar techniques (buccal infiltration) as an alternative to IANB in anesthetizing the mandibular posterior teeth [ 33 , 43 – 50 ], most of them either used 4% articaine alone [ 33 , 43 , 44 , 47 , 50 ], or preferred it over lidocaine as the anesthetic agent [ 46 , 48 , 49 ]. In dentistry, 4% articaine has been used as a local anesthetic agent for many years and it was reported to be better in ensuring pulpal anesthesia than a 2% lidocaine solution.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The success of using 2% lidocaine in pain removal during extraction of mandibular premolars: a prospective clinical study

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the anesthetic effectiveness of a buccal infiltration technique combined with local massage (using 2% lidocaine) in the extraction of mandibular premolars to be utilized as an alternative to the conventional inferior alveolar nerve block. Methods: Patients eligible included any subject with a clinical indication for tooth extraction of the mandibular 1st or 2nd premolars. All patients were anesthetized buccally by local infiltration technique followed by an external pressure applied for 1 min directly over the injection area. In each case, another local injection was given lingually. All operations were started at approximately 5 min after the buccal injection. The collected data included age, gender, pain perception and its intensity during treatment at three checkpoints, apical tenderness, and the type of extraction. Any associated complications or difficulties were also recorded. Then the results were analyzed and interpreted using appropriate statistical tests. The significance level was set at P ≤ 0.05. Results: A total of 247 cases (1st premolar, n = 119; 2nd premolar, n = 128), predominantly male, were included. In 95% of study sample, the patients were satisfied with the dental extraction without any pain. However, in 5% of cases, pain was reported at the stage of tooth removal. Apical tenderness was found to be present in 11% of the total cases. Three teeth required surgical removal. Upon analysis, no significant differences in the success rates were detected between the 2 premolar groups or amongst the various age groups. Minor and transient side effects were reported in this study. Conclusion: The technique is simple and effective as well. It might be considered as an alternative anesthetic injection to the inferior alveolar nerve block for dental extraction of the mandibular premolars.

show abstract

Anesthetic efficacy of mental/incisive nerve block compared to inferior alveolar nerve block using 4% articaine in mandibular premolars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a randomized clinical trial

Abstract: MINB and IANB with 4% articaine can be used interchangeably to anesthetize mandibular premolars with irreversible pulpitis.

Cited by 9 publications

References 33 publications

Critical analysis of the reporting quality of randomized trials within Endodontics using the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 quality standard checklist

Critical analysis of the reporting quality of randomized trials within Endodontics using the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 quality standard checklist

Present status and future directions—Mechanisms and management of local anaesthetic failures

The success of using 2% lidocaine in pain removal during extraction of mandibular premolars: a prospective clinical study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About