Effects of Two Different Anesthetic Solutions on Injection Pain, Efficacy, and Duration of Soft-Tissue Anesthesia with Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block for Primary Molars

The purpose of the study was to compare the efficacy, injection pain, duration of soft tissue anesthesia, and postoperative complications of two different anesthetics (2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine and 3% plain mepivacaine) in pediatric patients in inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) administered by a computer-controlled delivery system (CCDS). Study Design: The study was conducted as a randomized, controlled-crossover, double-blind clinical trial with 60 children requiring bilateral pulpotomy or extraction of primary mandibular molars. A CCDS was used to deliver 3% mepivacaine to 1 primary tooth and 2% lidocaine to the contralateral tooth with an IANB technique. Severity of pain and efficacy of anesthesia were evaluated using the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability Scale, and comfort and side effects were assessed using a questionnaire. Data were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U, Wilcoxon t, and Fisher exact tests. Results: Patients receiving 2% lidocaine experienced significantly less pain during injection than those receiving 3% mepivacaine, and no significant differences were found in the pain scores during treatments or in postoperative complications between the two anesthetics. The mean durations of anesthesia for 3% mepivacaine and 2% lidocaine were 139.68 minutes and 149.10 minutes, respectively. Conclusions: Plain mepivacaine and 2% lidocaine were similarly effective in pulpotomy and the extraction of primary mandibular molars. Although the use of 3% mepivacaine provided a shorter duration of anesthesia than 2% lidocaine, both solutions showed similar results in terms of postoperative complications.

injections, pain, primary teeth

1. Patricia M. Conlon. Assessment of pain in the pediatric patient. Paediatrics and Child Health; 19: 85-87. 2009.

2. Zarbock SF. Pediatric pain assessment. Home Care Provid 2000; 5: 181-184.

3. Milgrom P, Coldwell SE, Getz T, Weinstein P, Ramsay DS. Four dimensions of fear of dental injections. J Am Dent Assoc; 128: 756–766. 1997.

4. Malamed SF. The Syringe. In: Handbook of Local Anesthesia, 5th ed. St. Louis, Mo: Elsevier Mosby. 2004: 85-97.

5. Klein U, Hunzeker C, Hutfless S, Galloway A. Quality of anesthesia for the maxillary primary anterior segment in pediatric patients: comparison of the P-ASA nerve block using CompuMed delivery system vs traditional supraperiosteal injections. J Dent Child (Chic); 72: 119-125. 2005.

6. Allen KD, Kotil D, Larzelere RE, Hutfless S, Beiraghi S. Comparison of a computerized anesthesia device with a traditional syringe in preschool children. Pediatr Dent; 24: 315-320. 2002.

7. Yenisey M. Comparison of the pain levels of computer-controlled and conventional anesthesia techniques in prosthodontic treatment. J Appl Oral Sci; 17: 414-420. 2009.

8. Gibson RS, Allen K, Hutfless S, Beiraghi S. The Wand vs. traditional injection: a comparison of pain related behaviors. Pediatr Dent; 22: 458-462. 2000.

9. Koyuturk AE, Avsar A, Sumer M. Efficacy of dental practitioners in injection techniques: Computerized device and traditional syringe. Quintessence Int; 40: 73-77. 2009.

10. Wilson S, Montgomery RD. Local anesthesia and oral surgery in children. In: Pinkham JR, Casamassimo PS, McTigue DJ, Fields HW, Nowak AJ. (eds). Pediatric dentistry: infancy through adolescence, 4th ed. St Louis, Mo: Elsevier Saunders. 2005: 450-453.

11. Oulis C, Vadiakas G, Vasilopoulou A. The effectiveness of mandibular infiltration compared to mandibular block anesthesia in treating primary molars in children. Pediatr Dent; 18: 301-305. 1996.

12. Ram D, Peretz B. Administering local anesthesia to paediatric dental patients– current status and prospects for the future. Int J Paediat Dent 2002; 12: 80-89.

13. Malamed SF. Techniques of Mandibular Anesthesia. In: Handbook of Local Anesthesia, 5th ed. St. Louis, Mo: Elsevier Mosby. 2004: 227-253.

14. Malamed SF. Clinical Action of Specific Agents. In: Handbook of Local Anesthesia, 5th ed. St. Louis, Mo: Elsevier Mosby. 2004: 55-81.

15. Brockmann WG. Mepivacaine: a closer look at its properties and current utility. Gen Dent; 62(6):70-5. 2014.

16. Replogle K, Reader A, Nist R, Beck M, Weaver J, Meyers WJ. Anesthetic efficacy of the intraosseous injection of 2% lidocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) and 3% mepivacaine in mandibular first molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 83: 30-37. 1997.

17. Wright GZ, Weinberger SJ, Marti R, Plotzke O. The effectiveness of infiltration anesthesia in the mandibular primary molar region. Pediatr Dent; 13: 278-283. 1991.

18. Çalış AS, Çagıran E, Efeoğlu C, Ak TA, Koca H. Lidocaine Versus Mepivacaine in Sedated Pediatric Dental Patients: Randomized, Prospective Clinical Study. J Clin Pediatr Dent;39:74-8. 2014.

19. Odabaş ME, Cınar C, Deveci C, Alaçam A. Comparison of the anesthetic efficacy of articaine and mepivacaine in pediatric patients: a randomized, double-blind study. Pediatr Dent; 34: 42-45. 2012.

20. El-Sharkawi HF, El-Housseiny AA, Aly AM. Effectiveness of new distraction technique on pain associated with injection of local anesthesia for children. Pediatr Dent; 34(2):35-8. 2012.

21. Frankel SN, Shiere FR, Fogels HR. Should the parent remain with the child in the dental operatory. ASDC J Dent Child; 29: 150-163. 1962.

22. Merkel SI, Voepel-Lewis T, Shayevitz JR, Malviya S. The FLACC: a behavioral scale for scoring postoperative pain in young children. Pediatr Nurs; 23: 293-297. 1997.

23. Schröder Ulla. Pedodontic Endodontic. In: Koch G, Poulsen S (eds). Pediatric Dentistry: A Clinical Approach.2nd ed. Blackwell Munksgaard.:153-165. 2009.

24. Guelmann M, Shapira J, Silva DR, Fuks AB. Esthetic restorative options for pulpotomized primary molars: a review of literature. J Clin Pediatr Dent; 36(2):123-6. 2011.

25. Fuks AB. Pulp therapy for the primary dentition. In: Pinkham JR, Casamassimo PS, Fields HW, McTigue DJ, Nowak AJ, (eds). Pediatric Dentistry: Infancy Through Adolescence. 4th ed. St. Louis, Mo: Elsevier Saunders. 2005: 375–393.

26. Peretz B, Ram D. Restorative material for children’s teeth: preferences of parents and children. ASDC J Dent Child; 69(3):243-8. 2002.

27. Atieh M . Stainless steel crown versus modified open-sandwich restorations for primary molars: a 2-year randomized clinical trial. Int J Paediatr Dent;18(5):325-32. 2008.

28. Cehreli ZC, Cetinguc A, Cengiz SB, Altay AN. Clinical performance of pulpotomized primary molars restored with resin-based materials. 24-month results. Am J Dent;19(5):262-6. 2006.

29. Malamed SF. Is the mandibular nerve block passé? J Am Dent Assoc;142 (Suppl 3):3-7. 2011.

30. Ajarmah JA, Tbashat JM, Omor RA, Rassas EA, Rman KKA. Operators experience and the success rate of inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia. Pakistan Oral & Dental Journal; 33(1):137-140. 2013.

31. Keetley A, Moles DR. A clinical audit into the success rate of inferior alveolar nerve block analgesia in general dental practice. Prim Dent Care; 8(4):139-42. 2001.

32. Meechan JG. How to overcome failed local anaesthesia. Br Dent J;186(1):15-20. 1999.

33. Yilmaz Y, Eyuboglu O, Keles S. Comparison of the efficacy of articaine and prilocaine local anaesthesia for pulpotomy of maxillary and mandibular primary molars. Eur J Paediatr Dent; 12: 117-122. 2011.

34. Cohen HP, Cha BY, Spångberg LS. Endodontic anesthesia in mandibular molars: a clinical study. J Endod; 19: 370-373. 1993.

35. McLean C, Reader A, Beck M, Meryers WJ. An evaluation of 4% prilocaine and 3% mepivacaine compared with 2% lidocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) for inferior alveolar nerve block. J Endod; 19: 146-150. 1993.

36. Oikarinen VJ, Ylipaavalniemi P, Evers H. Pain and temperature sensations related to local analgesia. Int J Oral Surg; 4: 151-156. 1975.

37. Kramp LF, Eleazer PD, Scheetz JP. Evaluation of prilocaine for the reduction of pain associated with transmucosal anesthetic administration. AnesthProg; 46: 52-55. 1999.

38. Nusstein J, Burns Y, Reader A, Beck M, Weaver J. Injection pain and post injection pain of the palatal-anterior superior alveolar injection, administered with the Wand Plus system, comparing 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine to 3% mepivacaine. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 97: 164-172. 2004.

39. Lawaty I, Drum M, Reader A, Nusstein J. A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of 2% mepivacaine with 1: 20,000 levonordefrin versus 2% lidocaine with 1: 100,000 epinephrine for maxillary infiltrations. Anesth Prog; 57: 139-144. 2010.

40. Malamed SF. Pharmocology of Vasoconstrictors. In: Handbook of Local Anesthesia, 5th ed. St. Louis, Mo: Elsevier Mosby. 2004: 41-54.

41. Ram D, Hermida LB, Peretz B. A comparison of warmed and room-temperature anesthetic for local anesthesia in children. Pediatr Dent; 24: 333-336. 2002.