This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of various local anesthesia (LA) in vital asymptomatic teeth.

Randomized controlled trials comparing pulpal anesthesia of various LA on vital asymptomatic teeth were included in this review. Searches were conducted in the Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar and 3 field-specific journals from inception to May 3, 2019. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool were done by 2 independent reviewers in duplicate. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed within the frequentist setting using STATA 15.0. The LA was ranked, and the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) line was plotted. The confidence of the NMA estimates was assessed using the CINeMA web application.

The literature search yielded 1,678 potentially eligible reports, but only 42 were included in this review. For maxillary buccal infiltration, articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 was more efficacious than lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000 (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.14–3.89). For mandibular buccal infiltration, articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 was more efficacious than various lidocaine solutions. The SUCRA ranking was highest for articaine 4% with epinephrine when used as maxillary and mandibular buccal infiltrations, and lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:80,000 when used as inferior alveolar nerve block. Inconsistency and imprecision were detected in some of the NMA estimates.

Articaine 4% with epinephrine is superior when maxillary or mandibular infiltration is required in vital asymptomatic teeth.

This randomized clinical trial aimed to assess the effectiveness of buccal infiltration with piroxicam on the anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with buccal infiltration in irreversible pulpitis, with pain assessed using the Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (HP-VAS).

This study included 56 patients with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular molars, randomly distributed between 2 groups (n = 28). After evaluating the initial pain score with the HP-VAS, each patient received IANB followed by buccal infiltration of 2% lignocaine with adrenaline (1:80,000). Five minutes later, the patients in groups 1 and 2 were given buccal infiltration with 40 mg/2 mL of piroxicam or normal saline, respectively. An access opening procedure (AOP) was performed 15 minutes post-IANB once the individual showed signs of lip numbness as well as 2 negative responses to electric pulp testing. The HP-VAS was used to grade the patient's pain during caries removal (CR), AOP, and working length measurement (WLM). Successful anesthesia was identified either by the absence of pain or slight pain through CR, AOP, and WLM, with no requirement of a further anesthetic dose. A statistical analysis was done using the Shapiro-Wilk and Mann-Whitney U tests.

The piroxicam group presented a significantly lower (p < 0.05) mean pain score than the saline group during AOP.

Buccal infiltration with piroxicam enhanced the efficacy of anesthesia with IANB and buccal infiltration with lignocaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis.

Achieving adequate anesthesia with inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) is of great importance during dental procedures. The aim of the present study was to assess the success rate of two anesthetic agents (bupivacaine and lidocaine) for IANB when treating teeth with irreversible pulpitis.

Sixty volunteer male and female patients who required root canal treatment of a mandibular molar due to caries participated in the present study. The inclusion criteria included prolonged pain to thermal stimulus but no spontaneous pain. The patients were randomly allocated to receive either 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine or 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine as an IANB injection. The sensitivity of the teeth to a cold test as well as the amount of pain during access cavity preparation and root canal instrumentation were recorded. Results were statistically analyzed with the Chi-Square and Fischer's exact tests.

At the final step, fifty-nine patients were included in the study. The success rate for bupivacaine and lidocaine groups were 20.0% and 24.1%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups at any stage of the treatment procedure.

There was no difference in success rates of anesthesia when bupivacaine and lidocaine were used for IANB injections to treat mandibular molar teeth with irreversible pulpitis. Neither agent was able to completely anesthetize the teeth effectively. Therefore, practitioners should be prepared to administer supplemental anesthesia to overcome pain during root canal treatment.