» Articles » PMID: 21174567

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

Overview
Journal Anesth Prog
Date 2010 Dec 23
PMID 21174567
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind crossover study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 2% mepivacaine with 1 : 20,000 levonordefrin versus 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine in maxillary central incisors and first molars. Sixty subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, maxillary central incisor and first molar infiltrations of 1.8 mL of 2% mepivacaine with 1 : 20,000 levonordefrin and 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine at 2 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. The teeth were electric pulp tested in 2-minute cycles for a total of 60 minutes. Anesthetic success (obtaining 2 consecutive 80 readings with the electric pulp tester within 10 minutes) was not significantly different between 2% mepivacaine with 1 : 20,000 levonordefrin and 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine for the central incisor and first molar. However, neither anesthetic agent provided an hour of pulpal anesthesia.

Citing Articles

Success of Pulpal Anesthesia Following Buccal Infiltration of the Maxillary First Molar With 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of 4% Articaine With 1:100,000 Epinephrine: A Prospective, Randomized Crossover Study.

Woo A, Nusstein J, Drum M, Fowler S, Reader A, Ni A Anesth Prog. 2023; 70(3):110-115.

PMID: 37850677 PMC: 11080968. DOI: 10.2344/anpr-70-03-01.


Anesthetic efficacy in vital asymptomatic teeth using different local anesthetics: a systematic review with network meta-analysis.

Liew A, Yeh Y, Abdullah D, Tu Y Restor Dent Endod. 2021; 46(3):e41.

PMID: 34513647 PMC: 8411002. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2021.46.e41.


Impact of maxillary teeth morphology on the failure rate of local anesthesia.

Gazal G, Omar E, Fareed W, Alsharif A, Bahabri R Saudi J Anaesth. 2020; 14(1):57-62.

PMID: 31998021 PMC: 6970379. DOI: 10.4103/sja.SJA_542_19.


Efficacy of dental local anesthetics: A review.

Badr N, Aps J J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2019; 18(6):319-332.

PMID: 30637342 PMC: 6323041. DOI: 10.17245/jdapm.2018.18.6.319.


Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia.

St George G, Morgan A, Meechan J, Moles D, Needleman I, Ng Y Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018; 7:CD006487.

PMID: 29990391 PMC: 6513572. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006487.pub2.


References
1.
Mikesell A, Drum M, Reader A, Beck M . Anesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for maxillary infiltrations. J Endod. 2008; 34(2):121-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.11.001. View

2.
Nusstein J, Wood M, Reader A, Beck M, Weaver J . Comparison of the degree of pulpal anesthesia achieved with the intraosseous injection and infiltration injection using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Gen Dent. 2005; 53(1):50-3. View

3.
Haas D, Harper D, Saso M, Young E . Lack of differential effect by Ultracaine (articaine) and Citanest (prilocaine) in infiltration anaesthesia. J Can Dent Assoc. 1991; 57(3):217-23. View

4.
Gross R, McCartney M, Reader A, Beck M . A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of bupivacaine and lidocaine for maxillary infiltrations. J Endod. 2007; 33(9):1021-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.06.003. View

5.
Certosimo A, Archer R . A clinical evaluation of the electric pulp tester as an indicator of local anesthesia. Oper Dent. 1996; 21(1):25-30. View