|DENTAL SCIENCE - REVIEW ARTICLE
|Year : 2013 | Volume
| Issue : 5 | Page : 103-108
Supplemental pulpal anesthesia for mandibular teeth
Thangavel Boopathi1, Mathew Sebeena1, Kailasam Sivakumar1, Jayakodi Harikaran1, Kumaravadivel Karthick1, Aruna Raj2
1 Department of Conservative Dentistry, K. S. R. Institute of Dental Science and Research, Namakkal District, Tamil Nadu, India
2 Department of Conservative Dentistry, Government Dental College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
|Date of Submission||02-May-2013|
|Date of Decision||04-May-2013|
|Date of Acceptance||04-May-2013|
|Date of Web Publication||13-Jun-2013|
Department of Conservative Dentistry, K. S. R. Institute of Dental Science and Research, Namakkal District, Tamil Nadu
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
| Abstract|| |
Clinical pulpal anesthesia is dependent on the interaction of three major factors. (1) the dentist (2) the patient and (3) local anesthesia. Many patients fear endodontic treatment due to a concern about pain. Although pain treatment is well managed in many endodontic patients, there exists a group of patients who do not receive adequate local anesthesia. The purpose of this review article is to discuss the possible reasons for pulpal anesthetic failures and also to focus on the measures for developing effective approaches for the same.
Keywords: Hot tooth, pulpal anesthesia, supplemental anesthesia
|How to cite this article:|
Boopathi T, Sebeena M, Sivakumar K, Harikaran J, Karthick K, Raj A. Supplemental pulpal anesthesia for mandibular teeth. J Pharm Bioall Sci 2013;5, Suppl S1:103-8
|How to cite this URL:|
Boopathi T, Sebeena M, Sivakumar K, Harikaran J, Karthick K, Raj A. Supplemental pulpal anesthesia for mandibular teeth. J Pharm Bioall Sci [serial online] 2013 [cited 2022 Dec 1];5, Suppl S1:103-8. Available from: https://www.jpbsonline.org/text.asp?2013/5/5/103/113307
Achieving adequate pulpal anesthesia in the mandible can often be a challenge to the clinician. In most cases after the conventional Inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) injection the onset of pulpal anesthesia usually occurs within 10-15 min. ,,,,, Teeth with irreversible pulpitis demonstrate an eight fold higher rate of local anesthetic failure compared to control teeth with normal vital dental pulp.
Supplemental injections with different techniques and/or types of anesthesia are frequently required in patients with irreversible pulpitis, primarily because pulpal anesthesia resulting from an initial injection is often inadequate for the completion of endodontic procedure. ,,
The purpose of this article is to focus on the failures of pulpal anesthesia and the measurement for achieving adequate anesthesia in endodontic.
| Reasons for Low Success Rate of Inferior Alveolar Mandibular Block|| |
Mylohyoid nerve is the accessory nerve most often cited as a cause for failure with mandibular anesthesia. When the IANB is compared to a combination injection of IANB plus the mylohyoid nerve block, the mylohyoid injection did not significantly enhance the pulp anesthesia of IANB. 
Cross innervation from the contra-lateral inferior alveolar nerve has been implicated in failure to achieve anesthesia in anterior teeth after IANB. Experimentally, cross innervations occurs in incisors but play a very small role in failure with IANB. ,
Needle deflection has also be theorized as a cause for failure with IANB. , In asymptomatic subjects it was found that the orientation of needle bevel, for an IANB did not affect anesthetic success or failure.
Inaccurate IANB: It has been theorized that the lack of accurate IANB causes failure. Studies using ultrasound  and radiographs , to accurately locate the inferior alveolar neurovascular bundle or mandibular foramen revealed accurate needle location did not guarantee successful pulpal anesthesia.
| Reasons for Pulpal Anesthetic Failure after IANB|| |
The central core theory
This theory states that the nerve on the outside of the nerve bundle supply molar teeth while the nerve and the inner supply the anterior teeth. 
The anesthetic solution may not diffuse into the nerve trunk to reach all the nerves to produce an adequate block even if deposited at the correct site. This theory may explain the higher experimental failure rates in the anterior teeth with IANB but not posterior teeth. ,,,,,
The term hot tooth generally refers to a pulp that has been diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis. Pre-operative pain is a risk factor for incomplete local anesthesia observed in patients with irreversible pulpitis. Although the mechanism mediating this clinical problem is incompletely understood several hypothesis have been advanced.
trapping of local anesthetics is due to the low pH. The lowered pH of inflamed tissue reduces the amount of the base form of anesthetic to penetrate the nerve membrane. Consequently there is less of the ionized form within the nerve to achieve anesthesia. However this is only possible for infiltration injections, block injections are not likely to involve acidotic tissues.
Altered membrane excitability of peripheral nociceptors
from inflamed tissue have altered resting potential and decreased excitability threshold. Wallace et al. demonstrated that the local anesthetic agents are not sufficient to prevent impulse transmission as a result of these lower excitability thresholds. ,
Tetrodotoxin resistant channels
has been shown that Tetrodotoxin resistant channels (TTXr) class of sodium channels are resistant to the action of local anesthesia. A related factor is the increased expression of sodium channels in pulp diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis.  TTXr channels represent a logical mechanism for local anesthetic failures. These channels are relatively resistant to lidocaine, they are expressed on nociceptors and their activity with Prostoglandin E2 (PG E2).
Increased sensitization may amplify incoming signals from sensory nerves. Under conditions of central sensitization, there is an exaggerated response to peripheral stimuli and under these conditions the IANB may permit for sufficient signaling to occur to lead to the perception of pain. Thus the central sensitization may contribute to local anesthetic failures.
Patient anxiety may contribute to local anesthetic failure. Experienced clinicians understand that apprehensive patient have a reduced pain threshold and are more likely to report an unpleasant dental experience. 
| Methods to Improve Pulpal Anesthesia in Endodontics|| |
Intraligamentary (periodontal ligament) anesthesia
to the injection it is recommended that the site of penetration is swabbed with an antiseptic solution. The needle is inserted at 30° to the long axis of the tooth at the mesio-buccal aspect of the roots. The needle is forced to maximum penetration until it is wedged between the tooth and the crestal bone.  Success is independent of needle gauge.  Some authors recommend that the needle bevel should face the alveolar wall,  as this reduces the chances of blockage and increases the efficacy of the injection.  Once the needle is correctly positioned, the solution is injected under back-pressure. The amount of solution injected into the periodontal ligament (PDL) is little. It is recommended that 0.2 ml solution is deposited into the periodontium of each root. When using the specialized syringes, it is important to maintain the needle in position for about 5-10 s following depression of the lever to allow escape of solution from the cartridge. Removing the needle from the PDL too soon will result in loss of solution from the cartridge. The most critical factor governing success of the technique is that the injection is performed against resistance.  Rapid onset of anesthesia is a striking feature of intraligamentary anesthesia. Anesthesia is achieved within 30 s and can be immediate. ,,,
| Duration of Intraligamentary Anesthesia|| |
Duration of intraligamentary anesthesia is variable. The duration of pulpal anesthesia to be around 15 min for single rooted teeth and rather less for lower molar. 
Factors influencing efficiency
- The anesthetic solution: The presence of vasoconstrictor significantly increases efficacy. Lidocaine with adrenaline was effective in 91.6% of PDL injection whereas without the vasoconstrictor the success rate was only 42%. 
- The operative procedure: The greatest success is achieved prior to exodontia and the least for endodontic procedures. ,,
- The type of tooth: Cowan (1986) found significant differences in the efficacy of intraligamentary anesthesia between the jaws, recording 55% success in the mandible and 83.3% in the maxilla.  On the other hand, white et al.(1988) reported no difference in the incidence of pulpal anesthesia between maxillary and mandibular teeth.  They also reported the least success for pulpal anesthesia with mandibular lateral incisors (18.2% success). The low success rate for pulpal anesthesia with lateral incisors may be owing to the paucity of perforations within the mandibular incisor sockets and the limited cancellous space.
- Smaller doses are required (0.2 ml/root).
- Overcomes failed conventional anesthesia. 
- Limited soft tissue anesthesia.
- Mandibular anesthesia in patients with bleeding disorders. 
Advanced armamentarium for intraligamentary injection
- Produce bacteremia (endocarditis). 
- There is rapid entry into circulation (cardio vascular effects). 
- Pre- and post-injection discomfort. 
- May damage periodontal tissues and pulp. 
- Injection equipment may be damaged. ,,
Computer controlled local anesthesia delivery system
scientific introduced the first Computer controlled local anesthesia delivery (C-CLAD) system in the United States in 1997. Originally known as the Wand, subsequent versions were sequentially renamed the Wand Plus and then CompuDent, the current designation.
The CompuDent system has three components: A base unit, a foot pedal, and a disposable hand piece assembly. The base unit contains a microprocessor and connects to both the foot pedal and the end of the hand piece assembly that accepts the local anesthetic cartridge. The microprocessor controls a piston that expresses local anesthetic by pushing the local anesthetic plunger up into the cartridge. The anesthetic solution is then forced into the tissue. Pressing lightly on the foot pedal activates a slow injection rate (0.005 ml/s) appropriate for needle insertion, PDL injection, and palatal administration. Heavier pressure on the pedal increases injection speed to deliver the entire content of the cartridge in 1 min (i.e., 0.03 ml/s) which is normally used for buccal infiltration.
In 2007, Milestone Scientific added the single tooth anesthesia (STA) system to its product line. The STA unit adds dynamic pressure sensing technology, which provides continuous feedback to the user about pressure at the needle tip to help identify ideal needle placement for PDL injections.
The comfort control syringe differs from the Milestone products in that there is no foot pedal. It has two main components: A base unit and a syringe. Several functions of the unit most importantly injection and aspiration - can be controlled directly from the syringe, possibly making its use easier to master for practitioners accustomed to the traditional manual syringe.
The comfort control syringe has five different basic injection rate settings designed for specific injections: Blocks, infiltrations, PDL, intra-osseous and palatal. Each rate is selected by the push of a button. A comparison between the traditional dental syringe and the comfort control syringe revealed no meaningful differences in ease of administration, injection pain and efficacy and acceptance by patients. 
Three features of C-CLAD support the assertion that there may be less pain on injection.
Various investigators ,, have reported no differences in injection pain with Milestone products.
- First is the ability to administer small amounts of local anesthetics continuously during needle insertion.
- Second is the steady infusion of the anesthetic may reduce discomfort.
- Third is the reduced force for needle insertion has improved comfort.
The use of intra-osseous anesthesia was described by Lilienthal  and this author notes the reluctance at that time of operators to use the method. Since that time, specialized delivery systems have been introduced and this may increase the acceptance of the technique. 
Technique - This method is as follows
The point of perforation is infiltrated with 0.2 ml local anesthetic and 50-60 s. allowed to pass to ensure gingival anesthesia.  This point should lie in attached gingiva and is determined by imagining two lines running at right angles to one another. The horizontal line runs along the buccal gingival margins of the teeth and the vertical line bisects the distal interdental papilla of the tooth of interest. The point of penetration is 2 mm apical to the intersection of these lines. If this point lies within the reflected mucosa, an area of attached gingiva coronal to this is chosen. While using the specialized equipment, the perforator (attached to a slow-speed hand piece) is advanced through the anaesthetized gingiva and bone until a characteristic 'give' indicating penetration through to the cancellous bone is experienced. At this stage, the perforator is removed, the short (8 mm) 27 gauge needle is inserted through the perforation into the cancellous space and around 1.0 ml solution is delivered slowly (over a 2 min period).This technique anaesthetizes the tooth of interest and will also anaesthetize the teeth mesial and distal to that tooth in the majority of cases. 
Duration of anesthesia
The onset of intra-osseous anesthesia is rapid. ,, The onset of anesthesia ranged from 10 s to 120 s. The success falls of rapidly over one hour.
Factors governing success;
Advantages of intra-osseous anesthesia
- Anesthetic solution: The efficacy of intra-osseous injections is poor in the absence of vasoconstrictor. Repogle et al. (1997) reported less than 50% success in mandibular first molars when a plain 3% mepivacaine solution was injected compared to 74% success with lidocaine and adrenaline. 
- Type of tooth: The efficacy of the intra-osseous technique varies between teeth. Coggins et al. (1996) reported a 75% success rate with mandibular first molars compared to 93% success with maxillary first molars. 
Disadvantages of intra-osseous anesthesia
- Smaller doses are used.
- The amount of soft tissue anesthesia produced is less. 
- Overcome failure after conventional techniques.
- Technically more difficult.
- Specialized equipment may be required.
- Rapid entry of local anesthetic and vasoconstrictor into the circulation.
- Post-injection discomfort.
| Devices for Intra-osseous Anesthesia|| |
Three systems are available in the United States: Stabident, X-tip and Intra Flow.
The stabident system for intra-osseous anesthesia includes a solid 27-guage perforator needle with a simple beveled tip and a plastic base designed to fit a latch-type-slow speed contra-angle hand-piece. The operator uses the perforator to create a small tunnel through the attached gingiva, periosteum, and alveolar bone. The typical insertion point is on the attached gingiva, 2 mm below the facial gingival margin, and midway between the tooth of interest and an immediately adjacent (preferably distal) tooth. Local anesthesia should be administered to anesthetize the local gingival tissue, if it is not already numb from a previous injection.
Penetration is made using short bursts with light pressure to deposit anesthetic solution into the cancellous.
| X-tip|| |
The X-tip anesthesia delivery system was designed to solve the primary technical difficulty encountered with stabident system - finding the hole and inserting the needle. The X-tip system comprises three parts: The driller (perforator), a 25-guage guide sleeve that fits over the 27-guage drill, and an ultra-short needle of the same diameter. The drill leads the guide sleeve through the cortical plate into the cancellous bone. The drill portion is then removed, leaving the guide sleeve in place. The guide sleeve is then used to direct the needle into the cancellous bone to deposit the anesthetic solution. The primary difference in using the X-tips are:
- The penetration need not be performed through the attached gingiva,
- The guide sleeve must be carefully removed with a hemostat after the after the injection is performed.
| Intra Flow|| |
The Intra Flow HTP anesthesia delivery system is designed as an all-in-one system that allows the user to perforate the bone and deposit anesthetic solution in a single intra oral step. The Intra Flow device is essentially a dental hand piece equipped with an injection system build into the body. A 24-guage hollow perforator is used to penetrate the bone and infuse the local anesthetic solution. Anesthetic from the dental cartridge is routed to the perforator by a disposable transfuser that also serves to cover the switch used to select between perforator rotation and anesthetise infusion modes.
In mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis, patients requiring endodontic treatment in whom conventional local anesthetic injection fail to provide adequate pain relief for assessing the pulp. ,, A supplement intra-osseous injection of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 provided complete anesthesia in 82-89% of these subjects. This method may be helpful in treating children and adolescents.
- Anesthesia of single tooth.
- Primary method of pain control or as a supplementary technique.
Side effects and complications
- The most common effect is tachycardia from the injected vasoconstrictor. The heart rate accelerates within seconds after injection and remains elevated for several minutes thereafter.  The injection of the solution containing epinephrine should be limited in patient with cardiac disease.
- Separation of the perforator or drill needle. Post injection, hyperocclusion is relatively common.
- Moderate post injection pain.
- Dentinal tooth damage and osteonecrosis of bone. 
In about 5-10% of mandibular posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis, supplement injections even when repeated do not produce profound anesthesia. Pain persist when pulp is entered. This is an indication for an intrapulpal injection.
| Technique|| |
This method relies on deposition of solution directly into the pulp chamber. It will normally be administered following the injection of an anesthetic solution by another route. It is important that the solution is injected into the pulp under pressure. An opening into the pulp should be made with a small round bur to allow the snug fit of the needle. If a large opening is present in the pulp chamber, then the needle should be advanced into the canal until the fit is tight. The important point is that the injection must be administered under pressure.
The amount of solution injected is around 0.2 ml. The only way to ensure no back flow is to introduce the needle through a small pulpal opening. 
Factors influencing efficacy
Although some authors claim that efficacy is dependent upon the anesthetic solution,  a recent double-blind study has shown that intrapulpal anesthesia may be obtained just as effectively by injecting saline compared to a local anesthetic solution. 
Advantages of intrapulpal anesthesia
Disadvantages of intrapulpal anesthesia
- As mentioned above the method does not require a local anesthetic.
- The method provides a useful means of overcoming failure in teeth where conventional techniques have been unsuccessful.
- Although theoretically this technique uniquely could provide single-tooth anesthesia, the fact that it is normally administered after failure of another method precludes this possibility in most cases.
- The systemic effects of intrapulpal anesthesia appear to be negligible.
Mandibular buccal infiltration with articaine
- The injection may be painful.
- Limited application as it involves pulpal exposure.
- Not indicated as a primary method.
An infiltration of articaine after an IANB if the patient has pain after a clinically successful IANB (lip numbness), helped in providing profound pulpal anesthesia.
Strategies to improve success of the IANB injection
- Use of fast acting anti-inflammatory drugs has an adjunct to the provision of local anesthesia to teeth with inflamed pulp and peri-radicular tissue.
- Reducing pulpal level of inflammatory mediator PGE2 would be beneficial in two ways, firstly, decreasing pulpal nociceptors, sensitization would mitigate an increase in resistance to local anesthetics.  Secondly, it may diminish a prostonoid induced stimulation of TTXr sodium channel activity. This channel also displaces relative resistance to lidocaine. Reduction of PGE2 could be accomplished with either Non steroidal anti inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) or steroids.
- Double blind clinical trial have showed that the injectable NSAID ketorolac, when injected intraorally or intra muscularly produce significant analgesia in patient with severe odontogenic pain. ,
- Intra-osseous injection of 40 mg methylprednisolone in patients with irreversible pulpitis resulted in less pain.  Finally reducing anxiety by sublingual triazolam  or nitrous oxide, and a caring chair side manner, increases the likelihood of effective local anesthesia in endodontic pain patients.
| Conclusion|| |
Mandibular anesthesia remains a challenge in dentistry and especially an endodontics. Knowledge of the various methods is useful as these techniques might be required to provide pain control for teeth that prove difficult to anaesthetize by the operator's normal route.
| References|| |
|1.||Vreeland DL, Reader A, Beck M, Meyers W, Weaver J. An evaluation of volumes and concentrations of lidocaine in human inferior alveolar nerve block. J Endod 1989;15:6-12. |
|2.||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 1993;19:146-50. |
|3.||Chaney MA, Kerby R, Reader A, Beck FM, Meyers WJ, Weaver J. An evaluation of lidocaine hydrocarbonate compared with lidocaine hydrochloride for inferior alveolar nerve block. Anesth Prog 1991;38:212-6. |
|4.||Wali M, Reader A, Beck M, Meyers W. Anesthetic efficacy of lidocaine and epinephrine in human inferior alveolar nerve blocks. J Endod 1988;14:193. |
|5.||Simon F, Reader A, Meyers W, Beck M, Nist R. Evaluation of a peripheral nerve stimulator in human mandibular anesthesia. J Dent Res 1990;69:278. |
|6.||Fernandez C, Reader A, Beck M, Nusstein J. A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of bupivacaine and lidocaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks. J Endod 2005;31:499-503. |
|7.||Walton RE, Torabinejad M. Managing local anesthesia problems in the endodontic patient. J Am Dent Assoc 1992;123:97-102. |
|8.||Cohen HP, Cha BY, Spångberg LS. Endodontic anesthesia in mandibular molars: A clinical study. J Endod 1993;19:370-3. |
|9.||Reisman D, Reader A, Nist R, Beck M, Weaver J. Anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental intraosseous injection of 3% mepivacaine in irreversible pulpitis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1997;84:676-82. |
|10.||Clark S, Reader A, Beck M, Meyers WJ. Anesthetic efficacy of the mylohyoid nerve block and combination inferior alveolar nerve block/mylohyoid nerve block. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999;87:557-63. |
|11.||Yonchak T, Reader A, Beck M, Meyers WJ. Anesthetic efficacy of unilateral and bilateral inferior alveolar nerve blocks to determine cross innervation in anterior teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001;92:132-5. |
|12.||Rood JP. The analgesia and innervation of mandibular teeth. Br Dent J 1976;140:237-9. |
|13.||Cooley RL, Robison SF. Comparative evaluation of the 30-gauge dental needle. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1979;48:400-4. |
|14.||Hochman MN, Friedman MJ. In vitro study of needle deflection: A linear insertion technique versus a bidirectional rotation insertion technique. Quintessence Int 2000;31:33-9. |
|15.||Hannan L, Reader A, Nist R, Beck M, Meyers WJ. The use of ultrasound for guiding needle placement for inferior alveolar nerve blocks. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999;87:658-65. |
|16.||Berns JM, Sadove MS. Mandibular block injection: A method of study using an injected radiopaque material. J Am Dent Assoc 1962;65:735-45. |
|17.||Galbreath JC. Tracing the course of the mandibular block injection. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1970;30:571-82. |
|18.||Strichartz G. Molecular mechanisms of nerve block by local anesthetics. Anesthesiology 1976;45:421-41. |
|19.||Wallace JA, Michanowicz AE, Mundell RD, Wilson EG. A pilot study of the clinical problem of regionally anesthetizing the pulp of an acutely inflamed mandibular molar. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1985;59:517-21. |
|20.||Byers MR, Taylor PE, Khayat BG, Kimberly CL. Effects of injury and inflammation on pulpal and periapical nerves. J Endod 1990;16:78-84. |
|21.||Sorensen H, Skidmore L, Rzasa R, Kleier S, Levinson S, Hendry M. Comparison of pulpal sodium channel density in normal teeth to diseased teeth with severe spontaneous pain. J Endod 2004;30:287. |
|22.||Dreyer WP, van Heerden JD, de V Joubert JJ. The route of periodontal ligament injection of local anesthetic solution. J Endod 1983;9:471-4. |
|23.||Walton RE, Abbott BJ. Periodontal ligament injection: A clinical evaluation. J Am Dent Assoc 1981;103:571-5. |
|24.||Meechan JG. Supplementary routes to local anesthesia. Int Endod J 2002;35;885-96. |
|25.||Kim S. Ligamental injection: A physiological explanation of its efficacy. J Endod 1986;12:486-91. |
|26.||Khedari AJ. Alternative to mandibular block injections through intraligamental anesthesia. Quintessence Int Dent Dig 1982;13:231-7. |
|27.||Kaufman E, Galili D, Garfunkel AA. Intraligamentary anesthesia: A clinical study. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49:337-9. |
|28.||Cowan A. A clinical assessment of the intraligamentary injection. Br Dent J 1986;161:296-8. |
|29.||Gray RJ, Lomax AM, Rood JP. Periodontal ligament injection: With or without a vasoconstrictor? Br Dent J 1987;162:263-5. |
|30.||Malamed SF. The periodontal ligament (PDL) injection: An alternative to inferior alveolar nerve block. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1982;53:117-21. |
|31.||Miller AG. A clinical evaluation of the ligmaject periodontal ligament injection syringe. Dent Update 1983;10:639-40, 642-3. |
|32.||White JJ, Reader A, Beck M, Meyers WJ. The periodontal ligament injection: A comparison of the efficacy in human maxillary and mandibular teeth. J Endod 1988;14:508-14. |
|33.||Smith GN, Walton RE. Periodontal ligament injection: Distribution of injected solutions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1983;55:232-8. |
|34.||Ah Pin PJ. The use of intraligamental injections in haemophiliacs. Br Dent J 1987;162:151-2. |
|35.||Roberts GJ, Holzel HS, Sury MR, Simmons NA, Gardner P, Longhurst P. Dental bacteremia in children. Pediatr Cardiol 1997;18:24-7. |
|36.||Pashley D. Systemic effects of intraligamental injections. J Endod 1986;12:501-4. |
|37.||Walton RE. Distribution of solutions with the periodontal ligament injection: Clinical, anatomical, and histological evidence. J Endod 1986;12:492-500. |
|38.||Grace EG, Barnes DM, Reid BC, Flores M, George DL. Computerized local dental anesthetic systems: Patient and dentist satisfaction. J Dent 2003;31:9-12. |
|39.||Asarch T, Allen K, Petersen B, Beiraghi S. Efficacy of a computerized local anesthesia device in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent 1999;21:421-4. |
|40.||Ram D, Peretz B. The assessment of pain sensation during local anesthesia using a computerized local anesthesia (Wand) and a conventional syringe. J Dent Child (Chic) 2003;70:130-3. |
|41.||Versloot J, Veerkamp JS, Hoogstraten J. Pain behaviour and distress in children during two sequential dental visits: Comparing a computerised anaesthesia delivery system and a traditional syringe. Br Dent J 2008;205:E2. |
|42.||Lilienthal B. A clinical appraisal of intraosseous dental anesthesia. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1975;39:692-7. |
|43.||Leonard MS. The efficacy of an intraosseous injection system of delivering local anesthetic. J Am Dent Assoc 1995;126:81-6. |
|44.||Repogle 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 1997;83:30-7. |
|45.||Coggins R, Reader A, Nist R, Beck M, Meyers WJ. Anesthetic efficacy of the intraosseous injection in maxillary and mandibular teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1996;81:634-41. |
|46.||Nusstein J, Reader A, Nist R, Beck M, Meyers WJ. Anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental intraosseous injection of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in irreversible pulpitis. J Endod 1998;24:487-91. |
|47.||Parente SA, Anderson RW, Herman WW, Kimbrough WF, Weller RN. Anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental intraosseous injection for teeth with irreversible pulpitis. J Endod 1998;24:826-8. |
|48.||Nusstein J, Kennedy S, Reader A, Beck M, Weaver J. Anesthetic efficacy of the supplemental X-tip intraosseous injection in patients with irreversible pulpitis. J Endod 2003;29:724-8. |
|49.||Lilienthal B, Reynolds AK. Cardiovascular responses to intraosseous injections containing catecholamines. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1975;40:574-83. |
|50.||Woodmansey KF, White RK, He J. Osteonecrosis related to intraosseous anesthesia: Report of a case. J Endod 2009;35:288-91. |
|51.||Smith GN, Smith SA. Intrapulpal injection: Distribution of an injected solution. J Endod 1983;9:167-70. |
|52.||Gurney BF. Anesthesiology and pharmacology in endodontics. Dent Clin North Am 1967;12/1:615-31. |
|53.||VanGheluwe J, Walton R. Intrapulpal injection: Factors related to effectiveness. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1997;83:38-40. |
|54.||Rood JP, Pateromichelakis S. Inflammation and peripheral nerve sensitisation. Br J Oral Surg 1981;19:67-72. |
|55.||Curtis P Jr, Gartman LA, Green DB. Utilization of ketorolac tromethamine for control of severe odontogenic pain. J Endod 1994;20:457-9. |
|56.||Penniston SG, Hargreaves KM. Evaluation of periapical injection of ketorolac for management of endodontic pain. J Endod 1996;22:55-9. |
|57.||Gallatin E, Reader A, Nist R, Beck M. Pain reduction in untreated irreversible pulpitis using an intraosseous injection of Depo-Medrol. J Endod 2000;26:633-8. |
|58.||Kaufman E, Hargreaves KM, Dionne RA. Comparison of oral triazolam and nitrous oxide with placebo and intravenous diazepam for outpatient premedication. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1993;75:156-64. |
|This article has been cited by|
||INFLAMASYONLU DISLERDE ANESTEZI YETERSIZLIGI VE GÜNCEL ÇÖZÜM ÖNERILERI
| ||Seda ELMAS, Mesut Enes ODABAS |
| ||Atatürk Üniversitesi Dis Hekimligi Fakültesi Dergisi. 2021; : 1 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Comparison of jet injection technique with conventional injection technique in patients undergoing endodontic therapy
| ||MahaboobShahul Hameed, Senthil Kumar, C Charanya, M Muthalagu, M Anitha |
| ||Contemporary Clinical Dentistry. 2021; 12(1): 28 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||The clinical significance of intrapulpal anesthesia for painless dental procedure
| ||Nina Buric, Simona Stojanovic, Kristina Buric |
| ||Acta stomatologica Naissi. 2020; 36(82): 2117 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Post-operative analgesia of 2% lignocaine with or without magnesium sulfate for inferior alveolar nerve block in symptomatic mandibular molars - a randomized double blind controlled clinical trial
| ||Charanya Chandrasekaran, Vijay Amirtharaj L, Mahalaxmi Sekar, Mary Nancy S |
| ||Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. 2020; 20(3): 147 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Effective anaesthesia of the acutely inflamed pulp: part 1. The acutely inflamed pulp
| ||S. S. Virdee,D. Seymour,S. Bhakta |
| ||BDJ. 2015; 219(8): 385 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|