Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Lidocaine in Permanent Maxillary Teeth Removal Performed with Single Buccal Infiltration Versus Routine Buccal and Palatal Injection

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

For many dental patients, palatal injection proves to be a very traumatic experience. Diverse methods have been suggested to reduce the discomfort of palatal injection. Nevertheless, the reliability of these methods is not obviously evident and they are not found to be universally effective. The desirable method to evade pain during palatal injection is just not to have one. Hence, the present study aims at investigating if lidocaine hydrochloride could provide palatal anesthesia in maxilla when only a buccal infiltration anesthesia is done for teeth extraction.

Patients and Methods

One hundred and fifty patients requiring extraction of maxillary teeth were included in the study. Patients were randomly allotted to two groups, study and control. Patients in study group received a single buccal infiltration of 1.5 mL of lidocaine with epinephrine for extraction of maxillary teeth. Patients in control group received 1.5 mL of buccal and 0.3 mL of palatal infiltration of lidocaine with epinephrine for the extraction. After achieving adequate palatal anesthesia the tooth was extracted with consistent technique. Pain level experienced by the patients during injection procedure and during tooth extraction was rated in an 11-point pain rating scale. Time taken to achieve palatal anesthesia following a single buccal infiltration of anesthetic solution was evaluated by regular pin-prick evaluation of palatal tissues.

Results

The overall success rate of palatal anesthesia achieved with a single buccal infiltration is 81.3 %. The success rate reduced as we proceed from anterior to posterior maxilla. Time taken to achieve successful palatal anesthesia by single buccal infiltration is 7–9 min.

Conclusion

The extraction of permanent maxillary anterior teeth and premolars is possible by depositing local anesthesia to the buccal vestibule of the tooth without palatal supplementation. However, the extraction of permanent maxillary posterior teeth with similar technique would result in fewer success rates suggesting its avoidance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nuttall NM, Brandnock G, White D et al (2001) Dental attendance in 1998 and implications for the future. Br Dent J 190:177–182

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Meechan JG, Howlett PC, Smith BD (2005) Factors influencing the discomfort of intraoral needle penetration. Anesth Prog 52:91–94

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Munshi AK, Amitha MH, Latha R (2001) Use of EMLA®: is it an injection free alternative? J Clin Pediatr Dent 25:215–219

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Malamed SF, Gagnon S, Dominique L (2000) A comparison between articaine HCl and lidocaine HCl in pediatric dental patients. Pediatr Dent 22(4):307–311

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Malamed SF (1997) Handbook of local anesthesia, 4th edn. Mosby, St Louis

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fan S, Chen WI, Yang ZH et al (2009) Comparison of the efficiencies of permanent maxillary tooth removal performed with single buccal infiltration versus routine buccal and palatal injection. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 107(3):359–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Meechan JG (2002) Effective topical anesthetic agents and techniques. Dent Clin N Am 46(4):759–766

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kravitz J (2006) The palatal press and roll anesthesia technique. Pract Proc Aesthet Dent 18(4):242–245

    Google Scholar 

  9. Harbert H (1989) Topical ice: a precursor of palatal injections. J Endod 15(1):27–28

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Meechan JG, Day PF (2002) A comparison of intraoral injection discomfort produced by plain and epinephrine-containing lidocaine local anesthetic solutions: a randomized, double-blind, split-mouth, volunteer investigation. Anesth Prog 49:44–48

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Friedman MJ, Hochman MN (1997) A 21st century computerized injection system for local pain control. Compend Contin Educ Dent 18(10):995–1000

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Meechan JG, Winter RA (1996) A comparison of topical anesthesia and electronic nerve stimulation for reducing the pain of intra-oral injections. Br Dent J 181(9):333–335

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Meechan JG (2000) Intra-oral topical anaesthetics: a review. J Dent 28:3–14

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Badcock ME, Gordon I, McCullough MJ (2007) A blinded randomized controlled trial comparing lignocaine and placebo administration to the palate for removal of maxillary third molars. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 36:1177–1182

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lima-Junior JL, Dias-Ribeiro E, de Araujo TN et al (2009) Evaluation of the buccal vestibule-palatal diffusion of 4 % articaine hydrochloride in impacted maxillary third molar extractions. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Buccal 14(3):E129–E132

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kubilay I, Abdullah K, Ercan D (2011) Comparison of depth of anesthesia in different parts of maxilla when only buccal anesthesia was done for maxillary teeth extraction. Int J Dent 2011:575874

    Google Scholar 

  17. Oliveria PC, Volpato MC, Ramacciato JC et al (2004) Articaine and lignocaine efficiency in infiltration anaesthesia: a pilot study. Br Dent J 197:45–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tortamano IP, Siviero M, Costa CG et al (2009) A comparison of the anesthetic efficacy of articaine and lidocaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis. J Endod 35:165–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Uckan S, Dayangac E, Araz K (2006) Is permanent maxillary tooth removal without palatal injection possible? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Endod 102:733–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ozec I, Tasdemir U, Gumus C et al (2010) Is it possible to anesthetize palatal tissues with buccal 4 % articaine injection? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68:1032–1037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rajasekhar G, Nagaraju T, Kolligiri, Nandagopal V et al (2011) Is palatal injection mandatory prior to extraction of permanent maxillary tooth: a preliminary study. Indian J Dent Res 22:100–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Nusstein J, Lee S, Reader A et al (2004) Injection pain and postinjection pain of the anterior middle superior alveolar injection administered with the Wand or conventional syringe. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 98:124–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. McArdle BF (1997) Painless palatal anesthesia. J Am Dent Assoc 128(5):647

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Frazer M (1992) Contributing factors and symptoms of stress in dental practice. Br Dent J 173(3):111

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Aslin WR (2001) Reduced discomfort during palatal injection. J Am Dent Assoc 132:1277

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Martin MD, Ramsey DS, Whitney C et al (1994) Topical anaesthesia: differentiating the pharmacological and psychological contributions to efficacy. Anesth Prog 41:40–47

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Meechan JG (2002) Practical dental local anaesthesia. Quintessence, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Mrs. S. Valarmathi, Department of Epidemiology, The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, India, for her statistical assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Academic Unit of Craniofacial Clinical Care, Faculty of Dentistry, AIMST University, Jalan Semeling-Bedong, 08100, Bedong, Kedah, Malaysia

    Ramesh Kumaresan, Balamanikanda Srinivasan & Sivakumar Pendayala

Authors
  1. Ramesh Kumaresan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Balamanikanda Srinivasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sivakumar Pendayala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ramesh Kumaresan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kumaresan, R., Srinivasan, B. & Pendayala, S. Comparison of the Effectiveness of Lidocaine in Permanent Maxillary Teeth Removal Performed with Single Buccal Infiltration Versus Routine Buccal and Palatal Injection. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 14, 252–257 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-014-0624-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-014-0624-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation