For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
2
views
37
references
 Top references
cited by
88
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      387
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Local Anesthetics: Review of Pharmacological Considerations

      Author(s): 1 , 2
      Publication date Created:
      Publication date (Print):
      Journal: Anesthesia Progress
      Publisher: American Dental Society of Anesthesiology (ADSA)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Local anesthetics have an impressive history of efficacy and safety in medical and dental practice. Their use is so routine, and adverse effects are so infrequent, that providers may understandably overlook many of their pharmacotherapeutic principles. The purpose of this continuing education article is to provide a review and update of essential pharmacology for the various local anesthetic formulations in current use. Technical considerations will be addressed in a subsequent article.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Efficacy of articaine: a new amide local anesthetic.

          Sheila S. Gagnon, S F Malamed, D Leblanc (2000)
          The authors compared the safety and efficacy of 4 percent articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 with 2 percent lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000. In three identical randomized, double-blind, multicenter trials, subjects 4 to 80 years of age received either 4 percent articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 or 2 percent lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 for simple or complex dental procedures. In each trial, the authors randomized the subjects in a 2:1 ratio to receive articaine or lidocaine. Efficacy was determined by both subject and investigator using a visual analog scale, or VAS. The authors used the Kruskal-Wallis test to analyze the data. A total of 882 subjects received articaine, and 443 received lidocaine. The authors found no statistical differences between the groups (P = .05). They also compared drug volumes for both articaine and lidocaine groups (2.5 milliliters +/- 0.07 standard error of mean, or SEM, vs. 2.6 mL +/- 0.09 SEM for simple procedures and 4.2 mL +/- 0.15 SEM vs. 4.5 mL +/- 0.21 SEM for complex procedures). The procedures' durations were comparable for both the articaine and lidocaine groups. The authors found no statistical difference between the two treatment groups (P = .05) with respect to subject or investigator pain ratings using the VAS; the mean pain scores determined by both patients and investigators for all groups tested were less than 1.0. The authors found that 4 percent articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 was well-tolerated in 882 subjects. It also provided clinically effective pain relief during most dental procedures and had a time to onset and duration of anesthesia appropriate for clinical use and comparable to those observed for other commercially available local anesthetics. Pain control is a major component of patient comfort and safety. Local anesthetics form the backbone of pain control techniques in dentistry. Four percent articaine with epinephrine is an amide local anesthetic that will meet the clinical requirements for pain control of most dental procedures in most patients.
          Article 0 comments Cited 31 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A comparison of articaine and lidocaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks.

            Mike Beck, P Mikesell, Joel Weaver … (2005)
            The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve blocks. Using a crossover design, inferior alveolar nerve blocks were randomly administered, in a double-blind manner, using 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, at two separate appointments, to 57 subjects. A pulp tester was used to test for anesthesia, in 4-min cycles for 60 min, of the molars, premolars, central, and lateral incisors. Anesthesia was considered successful when two consecutive 80 readings were obtained within 15 min and the 80 reading was continuously sustained for 60 min. Using the articaine solution, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 4 to 54% from the central incisor to the second molar. Using the lidocaine solution, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 2 to 48%. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the articaine and lidocaine solutions. We concluded that 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was similar to 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve blocks.
            Article 0 comments Cited 31 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Occurrence of paresthesia after dental local anesthetic administration in the United States.

              Gabriella A Garisto, H. Lawrence, Andrew Gaffen … (2010)
              Several studies have suggested that the likelihood of paresthesia may depend on the local anesthetic used. The purpose of this study was to determine if the type of local anesthetic administered had any effect on reports of paresthesia in dentistry in the United States. The authors obtained reports of paresthesia involving dental local anesthetics during the period from November 1997 through August 2008 from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System. They used chi(2) analysis to compare expected frequencies, on the basis of U.S. local anesthetic sales data, with observed reports of oral paresthesia. During the study period, 248 cases of paresthesia occurring after dental procedures were reported. Most cases (94.5 percent) involved mandibular nerve block. The lingual nerve was affected in 89.0 percent of cases. Reports involving 4 percent prilocaine and 4 percent articaine were 7.3 and 3.6 times, respectively, greater than expected (chi(2), P < .0001) on the basis of local anesthetic use by U.S. dentists. These data suggest that paresthesia occurs more commonly after use of 4 percent local anesthetic formulations. These findings are consistent with those reported in a number of studies from other countries. Until further research indicates otherwise, dentists should consider these results when assessing the risks and benefits of using 4 percent local anesthetics for mandibular block anesthesia.
              Article 0 comments Cited 30 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Title: Anesthesia Progress
                Publisher: American Dental Society of Anesthesiology (ADSA)
                ISSN (Print): 0003-3006
                ISSN (Electronic): 1878-7177
                Publication date Created: June 01 2012
                Publication date (Print): June 01 2012
                Volume: 59
                Issue: 2
                Pages: 90-102
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Associate Director of Education, General Dental Practice Residency, Miami Valley Hospital, Dayton, Ohio
                [2 ]Assistant Director and Attending Dentist in Anesthesia, Advanced Education in General Dentistry, Attending Dentist in Anesthesia, Graduate Pediatric Dentistry and Dental Anesthesiology, Lutheran Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, Clinical Associate Professor, Endodontics, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Orthodontics, The Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry of the University of Southern Californ
                Article
                DOI: 10.2344/0003-3006-59.2.90
                PMC ID: 3403589
                PubMed ID: 22822998
                SO-VID: 9324fc9e-6a5d-4ca1-a8ac-187c71596d73
                Copyright © © 2012
                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content387

                See all similar

                Cited by139

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors261

                See all reference authors