These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Injection pain and postinjection 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.
    Author: Nusstein J, Burns Y, Reader A, Beck M, Weaver J.
    Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2004 Feb; 97(2):164-72. PubMed ID: 14970775.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare injection pain and postinjection pain of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 3% mepivacaine using the computer-assisted Wand Plus injection system to administer the palatal-anterior superior alveolar (P-ASA) injection. Additionally study was done to determine if the use of topical anesthetic decreased the pain of needle insertion with the P-ASA injection. STUDY DESIGN: Using a crossover design, 40 subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, P-ASA injections of 1.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 1.4 mL of 3% mepivacaine, at 2 separate appointments. The P-ASA injection was administered, utilizing the Wand Plus system, 6 to 10 mm into the incisive canal located lingual to the central incisors. The pain of needle insertion, needle placement, solution deposition and postinjection pain were recorded on a Heft-Parker visual analog scale for the 2 P-ASA injections. Eighty injections were randomly administered in the study, 40 using topical anesthetic gel and 40 using a placebo gel. RESULTS: For needle insertion, 30% of the subjects reported moderate/severe pain with the lidocaine solution and 43% reported moderate/severe pain with the mepivacaine solution. There was no significant difference (P > .05) between the topical and placebo groups. For needle placement into the incisive canal, 54% of the subjects reported moderate/severe pain with the lidocaine solution and 58% reported moderate/severe pain with the mepivacaine solution. For anesthetic solution deposition, 8% of the subjects reported moderate pain with the lidocaine solution and 12% reported moderate pain with the mepivacaine solution. There were no significant differences (P > .05) between the lidocaine and mepivacaine solutions. Regarding postinjection pain, when anesthesia wore off on the day of the injection, 20% of the subjects reported moderate/severe pain with the lidocaine solution and 14% reported moderate/severe pain with the mepivacaine solution. Pain ratings decreased over the next 3 days. There were no significant differences (P > .05) between the lidocaine and mepivacaine solutions. Postinjection, 12% and 18% of the subjects experienced temporary numbness/paresthesia of the incisive papilla with the lidocaine and mepivacaine solutions, respectively. Twenty percent and 28% of the subjects had incisive papilla swelling or soreness with the lidocaine and mepivacaine solutions, respectively. There were no significant differences (P > .05) between the lidocaine and mepivacaine solutions. CONCLUSIONS: The P-ASA injection of 1.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 3% mepivacaine, administered with the Wand Plus, has the potential to be a painful injection. The use of topical anesthetic did not significantly reduce pain of needle insertion when compared to a placebo. The incidence of postinjection pain, temporary numbness/paresthesia, and incisive papilla swelling or soreness would indicate that some pain and problems occur with the P-ASA technique, regardless of whether 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 3% mepivacaine is used.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]