A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Comparison of the Injection Pain and Anesthetic Onset of 2% Lidocaine with 1:100,000 Epinephrine Buffered with 5% and 10% Sodium Bicarbonate in Maxillary Infiltrations

被引:21
作者
Hobeich, Paul [1 ]
Simon, Stephen [1 ]
Schneiderman, Emit [2 ]
He, Jianing [1 ]
机构
[1] Texas A&M Univ Syst, Hlth Sci Ctr, Baylor Coll Dent, Dept Endodont, Dallas, TX USA
[2] Texas A&M Univ Syst, Hlth Sci Ctr, Baylor Coll Dent, Dept Biomed Sci, Dallas, TX USA
关键词
Buffered; infiltration; lidocaine; maxillary; onset; sodium bicarbonate; ELECTRIC PULP TESTER; LOCAL-ANESTHESIA; LIGNOCAINE; TRIAL;
D O I
10.1016/j.joen.2013.01.008
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Introduction: Local anesthetics can be buffered to a physiological pH before injection to decrease the time of onset and reduce injection pain. Methods: Thirty subjects with intact maxillary canines were included. The subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, 1 of the 3 maxillary infiltration injections of 1.8 mL 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine buffered at 5% and 10% with sodium bicarbonate by volume at 3 separate appointments. Pain on needle penetration and deposition of anesthetic solution was recorded by using a Heft-Parker visual analogue scale. Anesthetic onset was determined by 2 consecutive negative responses to electronic pulp test. Results: The mean anesthetic onset for nonbuffered anesthetics was 119 seconds, 116 seconds for the 5% buffered solutions, and 121 seconds for the 10% buffered solutions. There was no significant difference between the 3 groups. There was also no significant difference in pain on needle penetration or anesthetic deposition between the 3 anesthetic solutions tested. Conclusions: Two percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine buffered with 5% or 10% sodium bicarbonate did not differ from nonbuffered solutions in anesthetic onset or injection pain in maxillary infiltrations of canines with healthy pulps.
引用
收藏
页码:597 / 599
页数:3
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2006, AL RAFIDAIN DENT J, DOI DOI 10.33899/RDEN.2006.40218
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2004, AL RAFIDAIN DENT J, DOI DOI 10.33899/RDEN.2004.164884
[3]   A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Comparison of the Anesthetic Efficacy of Two Percent Lidocaine with 1:100,000 and 1:50,000 Epinephrine and Three Percent Mepivacaine in the Intraoral, Infraorbital Nerve Block [J].
Berberich, Gerhard ;
Reader, Al ;
Drum, Melissa ;
Nusstein, John ;
Beck, Mike .
JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 2009, 35 (11) :1498-1504
[4]   Decreasing the pain of local anesthesia: A prospective, double-blind comparison of buffered, premixed 1% lidocaine with epinephrine versus 1% lidocaine freshly mixed with epinephrine [J].
Burns, CA ;
Ferris, G ;
Feng, CY ;
Cooper, JZ ;
Brown, MD .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY, 2006, 54 (01) :128-131
[5]  
Certosimo AJ, 1996, OPER DENT, V21, P25
[6]  
Davies Robert John, 2003, Emerg Med (Fremantle), V15, P81, DOI 10.1046/j.1442-2026.2003.00413.x
[7]  
DeJong R, 1993, LOCAL ANESTHETICS
[8]   AN EVALUATION OF AN ELECTRIC PULP TESTER AS A MEASURE OF ANALGESIA IN HUMAN VITAL TEETH [J].
DREVEN, LJ ;
READER, A ;
BECK, FM ;
MEYERS, WJ ;
WEAVER, J .
JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 1987, 13 (05) :233-238
[9]  
Fiset L, 1989, GEN DENT, V37, P3
[10]   The use of pH adjusted lignocaine in controlling operative pain in the day surgery unit: A prospective, randomised trial [J].
Fitton, AR ;
Ragbir, M ;
Milling, MAP .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF PLASTIC SURGERY, 1996, 49 (06) :404-408