2%-Mepivacaine With Two Different Vasoconstrictors Solutions in Third Molar Surgery a Comparative Study

Summary

Dental treatments, particularly third molars extraction, can become extremely uncomfortable and painful. They are associated to anxiety, fear and many other unpleasant sensations. During surgery, patients can present cardiorespiratory repercussions of these sensations. This fact generally justifies the employment of methods of monitoring and appliance of safer therapeutic alternatives. Local anesthetics are the most frequently drugs used in dentistry. Vasoconstrictors, particularly epinephrine, are important components of anesthetic solutions to increased time for anesthetic absorption and consequently increasing the duration of anesthesia. The use of smaller amounts of anesthetic solution can reduce the risk of systemic toxicity, however decrease the total surgical time. It is well known that the amount of epinephrine injected into patients during anesthetic procedures can produce adverse hemodynamic effects. Levonordefrin was adding to dental cartridges promising to reduce cardiac stimulation due it less β activity, and maintain the same clinical and systemic effects. But some studies for maxillary or intraosseous infiltrations showed no difference in heart rate and any anesthetic success over epinephrine. Thus, this study aims to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of anesthetic mepivacaine 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000 or 1:20,000 levonordefrin employing a clinical trial model of third molars extractions in healthy adults.

Timeline

Start

2014-08

Primary completion

2015-06

Completion

2016-07

Publications

• Background Ezmek B, Arslan A, Delilbasi C, Sencift K. Comparison of hemodynamic effects of lidocaine, prilocaine and mepivacaine solutions without vasoconstrictor in hypertensive patients. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010 Jul-Aug;18(4):354-9. doi: 10.1590/s1678-77572010000400006.
• Background Hersh EV, Giannakopoulos H. Beta-adrenergic blocking agents and dental vasoconstrictors. Dent Clin North Am. 2010 Oct;54(4):687-96. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2010.06.009.
• Background Serrera Figallo MA, Velazquez Cayon RT, Torres Lagares D, Corcuera Flores JR, Machuca Portillo G. Use of anesthetics associated to vasoconstrictors for dentistry in patients with cardiopathies. Review of the literature published in the last decade. J Clin Exp Dent. 2012 Apr 1;4(2):e107-11. doi: 10.4317/jced.50590. eCollection 2012 Apr.
• Background Pellicer-Chover H, Cervera-Ballester J, Sanchis-Bielsa JM, Penarrocha-Diago MA, Penarrocha-Diago M, Garcia-Mira B. Comparative split-mouth study of the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 0.5% bupivacaine in impacted mandibular third molar extraction. J Clin Exp Dent. 2013 Apr 1;5(2):e66-71. doi: 10.4317/jced.50869. eCollection 2013 Apr 1.
• Background Torres-Lagares D, Serrera-Figallo MA, Machuca-Portillo G, Corcuera-Flores JR, Machuca-Portillo C, Castillo-Oyague R, Gutierrez-Perez JL. Cardiovascular effect of dental anesthesia with articaine (40 mg with epinefrine 0,5 mg % and 40 mg with epinefrine 1 mg%) versus mepivacaine (30 mg and 20 mg with epinefrine 1 mg%) in medically compromised cardiac patients: a cross-over, randomized, single blinded study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012 Jul 1;17(4):e655-60. doi: 10.4317/medoral.17892.
• Background Lawaty I, Drum M, Reader A, Nusstein J. 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. Anesth Prog. 2010 Winter;57(4):139-44. doi: 10.2344/0003-3006-57.4.139.

Drugs

Indications

No indication recorded.