M A Saso’s research while affiliated with University of Toronto and other places

It has been claimed that anaesthesia of mandibular pulpal and lingual soft tissue, as well as maxillary palatal soft tissue, results following buccal infiltration of the local anaesthetic Ultracaine (articaine HC1). However, this has never been scientifically proven and the aim of this investigation was to test these claims by comparing articaine to a standard anaesthetic, Citanest (prilocaine HC1). In order to study this, a double blind, randomized trial was conducted in healthy adult volunteers. In these subjects, the ability to induce maxillary and mandibular anaesthesia following buccal infiltration with articaine (as compared to prilocaine given contralaterally), was determined by measuring sensation to electrical stimulation at the tooth, buccal and lingual soft tissue at each of the four non-carious, non-restored, second molars. Results showed that there were no statistically significant differences between articaine and prilocaine in their ability to induce anaesthesia for any tissue at any of the six sites (p greater than 0.05) as determined by chi-square analysis. Analysis of effect on sensation for 25 minutes post-administration also failed to demonstrate a difference between the two drugs. Therefore, these data are not consistent with superior anaesthesia efficacy by articaine at any site, including the mandibular pulpal, lingual or maxillary palatal tissues, in the second molars studied.

Claims that labial infiltration of the local anesthetic articaine HCl (Ultracaine DS) results in anesthesia of mandibular pulpal as well as maxillary and mandibular lingual soft tissue have never been scientifically substantiated. The aim of this investigation was to evaluate these claims, by comparing articaine to a standard anesthetic, prilocaine HCl (Citanest Forte). To investigate this, a double blind, randomized study was conducted in healthy adult volunteers. In each volunteer, the ability to induce maxillary and mandibular anesthesia following labial infiltration with articaine was compared to prilocaine given contralaterally. Anesthesia was determined by measuring sensation to electrical stimulation at the tooth, labial and lingual soft tissue for each of the 4 non-carious, non-restored, canines. Results showed that mandibular canine pulpal anesthesia had a success rate of 65% for articaine and 50% for prilocaine. Success rates for palatal and lingual anesthesia averaged 5% for each agent. As determined by chi-square analysis, no statistically significant differences were found between articaine and prilocaine for any tissue at any of the 6 sites (P greater than 0.05). A time-course assessment also failed to demonstrate a difference between the two drugs. Therefore these data are not consistent with superior anesthesia efficacy being produced by articaine at any site, including the mandibular pulpal, lingual or maxillary palatal tissues, in the canine teeth studied.

Acute chest pain is one of the most common and potentially serious medical emergencies seen in hospital emergency departments. Because the elderly population is generally living to an older age, is more ambulatory, and is seeking more sophisticated dental care, an acute episode of chest pain in the dental office is a potential possibility. This paper will discuss a typical case report with emphasis not only on prevention, but on a step-by-step method for stabilizing any emergency situation that may occur in the dental environment.

This study utilizes healthy volunteers to determine, via electronic pulp tester, such basic clinical parameters as time of onset and duration of action for an infiltration and mandibular block utilizing the recently available local anesthetic preparation, 2 per cent lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine (Octocaine 200). This study showed Octocaine 200 to be both safe and efficacious, producing times of onset and duration within the clinically useful range. The rationale for vasoconstrictor use in dentistry is also reviewed.