The Experts below are selected from a list of 45 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Al Reader - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
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
Anesthesia Progress, 2010Co-Authors: Ingrid Lawaty, Melissa Drum, Al Reader, John NussteinAbstract: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.
-
anesthetic efficacy and heart rate effects of the supplemental intraosseous injection of 2 mepivacaine with 1 20 000 Levonordefrin
Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology and Endodontology, 1999Co-Authors: Anna Guglielmo, Al Reader, Robert Nist, Mike Beck, Joel M WeaverAbstract:Objective. The purpose of this study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy and heart rate effects of a supplemental intraosseous injection of 2% mepivacaine with 1:20,000 Levonordefrin. Study Design. Through use of a repeated-measures design, 40 subjects randomly received 3 combinations of injections at 3 separate appointments. The combinations were as follows: inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block (with 3% mepivacaine) + intraosseous injection of 1.8 mL of 2% mepivacaine with 1:20,000 Levonordefrin; IAN block + intraosseous injection of 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (positive control); IAN block + mock intraosseous injection (negative control). Each first molar, second molar, and second premolar was blindly tested with a pulp tester at 2-minute cycles for 60 minutes after injection. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive readings of 80 were obtained. Heart rate (pulse rate) was measured with a pulse oximeter. Results. One hundred percent of the subjects had lip numbness with the IAN block + intraosseous mock technique and IAN block + intraosseous techniques. The anesthetic success rates for IAN block + mock intraosseous injection, IAN block + intraosseous lidocaine, and IAN block + intraosseous mepivacaine, respectively, were as follows: 80%, 100%, and 100% for the first molar; 90%, 100%, and 100% for the second molar; 77%, 97%, and 97% for the second premolar. For the first molar and second premolar, the differences were significant (P < .05) when the intraosseous mepivacaine and lidocaine techniques were compared with the IAN block + mock intraosseous injection. There were no significant differences between the intraosseous mepivacaine and lidocaine techniques. Eighty percent of the subjects had a mean increase in heart rate of 23-24 beats per minute with the intraosseous injection of the mepivacaine and lidocaine solutions; there were no significant differences between results with the 2 solutions. Conclusions. We concluded that intraosseous injection of 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2% mepivacaine with 1:20,000 Levonordefrin, used to supplement an IAN block, significantly increased anesthetic success in first molars and second premolars. The 2 solutions were equivalent with regard to intraosseous anesthetic success rate, failure rate, and heart rate increase after IAN block. (Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999;87:284-93)
-
an evaluation of 4 prilocaine with 1 200 000 epinephrine and 2 mepivacaine with 1 20 000 Levonordefrin compared with 2 lidocaine with 100 000 epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve block
Anesthesia Progress, 1991Co-Authors: S A Hinkley, Al Reader, Michael W Beck, William J MeyersAbstract:: The purpose of this study was to measure the degree of anesthesia obtained with 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 2% mepivacaine with 1:20,000 Levonordefrin compared with 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve block. Using a repeated measures design, 30 subjects randomly received an inferior alveolar injection using masked cartridges of each solution at three successive appointments. The first molar, first premolar, lateral incisor, and contralateral canine (control) were blindly tested with an Analytic Technology pulp tester at 3-min cycles for 50 min. Anesthetic success was defined as no subject response to the maximum output of the pulp tester (80 reading) within 16 min and maintenance of this reading for the remainder of the testing period.Although subjects felt numb subjectively, anesthetic success as defined here occurred in 46% to 57% of the molars, in 50% to 57% of the premolars, and in 21% to 36% of the lateral incisors. No statistically significant differences in onset, success, failure, or incidence were found among the solutions. We conclude that the three preparations are equivalent for inferior alveolar nerve block of 50-min duration.
John Nusstein - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
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
Anesthesia Progress, 2010Co-Authors: Ingrid Lawaty, Melissa Drum, Al Reader, John NussteinAbstract: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.
Louis F. Kramp - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Evaluation ofPrilocaine fortheReduction ofPain Associated WithTransmucosal Anesthetic Adminitstration
1999Co-Authors: Louis F. KrampAbstract:This investigation evaluated theuseandefficacy ofprilocaine HCI(4%plain Citanest) forminimizing pain associated with theintraoral administration oflocal anesthesia. Clinical anecdotes support thehypothesis that prilocaine without avasoconstrictor reduces pain during injection. Todetermine relative injection discomfort, useof4%plain prilocaine wascompared with useof2%lidocaine with1:100,000 epinephrine and2%mepivacaine with1:20,000 Levonordefrin. Prior toroutine endodontic procedures, 150adult patients received 0.3to1.8mLoflocal anesthetic viathesamegauge needle without theuseofatopical local anesthetic. Injection methods included buccal infiltration, labial infiltration, palatal infiltration, and inferior alveolar nerve block. Following eachinjection, patients wereasked todescribe thelevel ofdiscomfort byscoring onavisual analog scale of1to10,where I=painless and10= severe pain. Analyses via2-way analysis ofvariance revealed nointeraction between anesthetic andsite ofinjection. However, there werestatistically significant differences amongtheinjection sites. Posthocanalysis revealed that prilocaine wasassociated with significantly less pain perception whencompared tomepivacaine andlidocaine. These results suggest that differences ininitial pain perception during transmucosal injection maybeafunction ofthelocal anesthetic use, andprilocaine canproduce less discomfort thantheothers tested.
-
Evaluation of prilocaine for the reduction of pain associated with transmucosal anesthetic administration.
Anesthesia Progress, 1999Co-Authors: Louis F. Kramp, P. D. Eleazer, J. P. ScheetzAbstract:This investigation evaluated the use and efficacy of prilocaine HCl (4% plain Citanest) for minimizing pain associated with the intraoral administration of local anesthesia. Clinical anecdotes support the hypothesis that prilocaine without a vasoconstrictor reduces pain during injection. To determine relative injection discomfort, use of 4% plain prilocaine was compared with use of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% mepivacaine with 1:20,000 Levonordefrin. Prior to routine endodontic procedures, 150 adult patients received 0.3 to 1.8 mL of local anesthetic via the same gauge needle without the use of a topical local anesthetic. Injection methods included buccal infiltration, labial infiltration, palatal infiltration, and inferior alveolar nerve block. Following each injection, patients were asked to describe the level of discomfort by scoring on a visual analog scale of 1 to 10, where 1 = painless and 10 = severe pain. Analyses via 2-way analysis of variance revealed no interaction between anesthetic and site of injection. However, there were statistically significant differences among the injection sites. Post hoc analysis revealed that prilocaine was associated with significantly less pain perception when compared to mepivacaine and lidocaine. These results suggest that differences in initial pain perception during transmucosal injection may be a function of the local anesthetic use, and prilocaine can produce less discomfort than the others tested.
William J Meyers - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
an evaluation of 4 prilocaine with 1 200 000 epinephrine and 2 mepivacaine with 1 20 000 Levonordefrin compared with 2 lidocaine with 100 000 epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve block
Anesthesia Progress, 1991Co-Authors: S A Hinkley, Al Reader, Michael W Beck, William J MeyersAbstract:: The purpose of this study was to measure the degree of anesthesia obtained with 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 2% mepivacaine with 1:20,000 Levonordefrin compared with 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve block. Using a repeated measures design, 30 subjects randomly received an inferior alveolar injection using masked cartridges of each solution at three successive appointments. The first molar, first premolar, lateral incisor, and contralateral canine (control) were blindly tested with an Analytic Technology pulp tester at 3-min cycles for 50 min. Anesthetic success was defined as no subject response to the maximum output of the pulp tester (80 reading) within 16 min and maintenance of this reading for the remainder of the testing period.Although subjects felt numb subjectively, anesthetic success as defined here occurred in 46% to 57% of the molars, in 50% to 57% of the premolars, and in 21% to 36% of the lateral incisors. No statistically significant differences in onset, success, failure, or incidence were found among the solutions. We conclude that the three preparations are equivalent for inferior alveolar nerve block of 50-min duration.
J. P. Scheetz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Evaluation of prilocaine for the reduction of pain associated with transmucosal anesthetic administration.
Anesthesia Progress, 1999Co-Authors: Louis F. Kramp, P. D. Eleazer, J. P. ScheetzAbstract:This investigation evaluated the use and efficacy of prilocaine HCl (4% plain Citanest) for minimizing pain associated with the intraoral administration of local anesthesia. Clinical anecdotes support the hypothesis that prilocaine without a vasoconstrictor reduces pain during injection. To determine relative injection discomfort, use of 4% plain prilocaine was compared with use of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% mepivacaine with 1:20,000 Levonordefrin. Prior to routine endodontic procedures, 150 adult patients received 0.3 to 1.8 mL of local anesthetic via the same gauge needle without the use of a topical local anesthetic. Injection methods included buccal infiltration, labial infiltration, palatal infiltration, and inferior alveolar nerve block. Following each injection, patients were asked to describe the level of discomfort by scoring on a visual analog scale of 1 to 10, where 1 = painless and 10 = severe pain. Analyses via 2-way analysis of variance revealed no interaction between anesthetic and site of injection. However, there were statistically significant differences among the injection sites. Post hoc analysis revealed that prilocaine was associated with significantly less pain perception when compared to mepivacaine and lidocaine. These results suggest that differences in initial pain perception during transmucosal injection may be a function of the local anesthetic use, and prilocaine can produce less discomfort than the others tested.