How Successful is Supplemental Intraseptal and Buccal Infiltration Anaesthesia in the Mandibular Molars of Patients Undergoing Root Canal Treatment or Tooth Extraction?

Giath Gazal; Rayan Bahabri; Albraa B Alolayan; Mahmod Alkayyal; Rahaf Al-Ghamdi; Ruwaa Salamah

doi:10.5037/jomr.2020.11105

How Successful is Supplemental Intraseptal and Buccal Infiltration Anaesthesia in the Mandibular Molars of Patients Undergoing Root Canal Treatment or Tooth Extraction?

J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2020 Mar 31;11(1):e5. doi: 10.5037/jomr.2020.11105. eCollection 2020 Jan-Mar.

Authors

Giath Gazal¹, Rayan Bahabri², Albraa B Alolayan¹, Mahmod Alkayyal³, Rahaf Al-Ghamdi³, Ruwaa Salamah³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Oral and Maxillofacial, College of Dentistry, Taibah University, MedinaKingdom of Saudi Arabia.
² Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, Division of Endodontics, College of Dentistry, Taibah University, MedinaKingdom of Saudi Arabia.
³ College of Dentistry, Taibah University, MedinaKingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the success rate of supplemental intraseptal and buccal infiltration anaesthesia in mandibular molars undergoing endodontic therapy/extraction when the inferior alveolar nerve block has failed.

Material and methods: A prospective clinical trial including 200 patients undergoing lower molar root canal treatment/teeth extraction was conducted. Only 80 patients of the participants who had profound lower lip anaesthesia after the administration of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) were in pain within treatment. Patients experiencing moderate to severe pain upon using elevators, forceps, bur, or endodontic file were randomly allocated to the 2% lidocaine intraseptal injection and 4% articaine buccal infiltration groups. Level of pain was assessed every 2 to 10 min on standard 100 mm visual analogue scales.

Results: Overall, 55 (69%) of patients who were given either intraseptal injection of 2% lidocaine or buccal infiltration of 4% articaine had successful anaesthesia of lower molar teeth within 10 min. However, 25 (31%) of participating patients in the buccal infiltration and the intraseptal groups had failed anaesthesia within the study duration (10 min), and they received additional local anaesthetic. IANBs were more painful than buccal and intraseptal injections. However, buccal articaine injections were significantly more comfortable than intraseptal lidocaine injections (P > 0.001).

Conclusions: Supplemental intraseptal injection of 2% lidocaine and buccal infiltration of 4% articaine achieved profound pulpal anaesthesia in 69% of patients when the inferior alveolar nerve block failed. Recommendations can be given to dental practitioners to use infiltration of 4% articaine in conjunction with intraseptal injection of 2% lidocaine to anaesthetize the lower molar teeth when inferior alveolar nerve block fails.

Keywords: dental anesthesia; endodontics; inferior alveolar nerve; local anesthetics; mandible; teeth extraction.