Resumo O bloqueio do nervo alveolar inferior apresenta uma alta taxa de falha para o tratamento de dentes posteriores mandibulares com pulpite irreversível. O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar a eficácia anestésica da articaína 4%, lidocaína 2% e mepivacaína 2%, todas em combinação com epinefrina 1:100.000, em pacientes com pulpite irreversível de molares mandibulares durante um procedimento de pulpectomia. Sessenta e seis voluntários do Centro de Emergência da Faculdade de Odontologia da Universidade de São Paulo receberam aleatoriamente 3.6 mL de anestésico local no bloqueio convencional do nervo alveolar inferior (BNAI). O sinal subjetivo de dormência do lábio, anestesia pulpar e ausência de dor durante o procedimento de pulpectomia foram, respectivamente, avaliados pelo interrogatório do paciente, usando um estimulador pulpar elétrico e uma escala analógica verbal. Todos os pacientes relataram o sinal subjetivo de dormência do lábio. Em relação ao sucesso da anestesia pulpar medido com o Pulp Tester, a taxa de sucesso foi, respectivamente, 68.2% para mepivacaína, 63,6% para articaína e 63,6% para lidocaína. Relativamente aos pacientes que relataram nenhuma dor ou dor leve, durante a pulpectomia, a taxa de sucesso foi, respectivamente, 72.7% para mepivacaína, 63.6% para articaína e 54,5% para a lidocaína. Estas diferenças não foram estatisticamente significantes. Nenhuma das soluções resultou em 100% de sucesso anestésico em pacientes com pulpite irreversível de molares mandibulares.

Abstract Inferior alveolar nerve block has a high failure rate in the treatment of mandibular posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis. The aim of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine, 2% lidocaine and 2% mepivacaine, all in combination with 1:100,000 epinephrine, in patients with irreversible pulpitis of permanent mandibular molars during a pulpectomy procedure. Sixty-six volunteers from the Emergency Center of the School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, randomly received 3.6 mL of local anesthetic as a conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB). The subjective signal of lip numbness, pulpal anesthesia and absence of pain during the pulpectomy procedure were evaluated respectively, by questioning the patient, stimulation using an electric pulp tester and a verbal analogue scale. All patients reported the subjective signal of lip numbness. Regarding pulpal anesthesia success as measured with the pulp tester, the success rate was respectively 68.2% for mepivacaine, 63.6% for articaine and 63.6% for lidocaine. Regarding patients who reported no pain or mild pain during the pulpectomy, the success rate was, respectively 72.7% for mepivacaine, 63.6% for articaine and 54.5% for lidocaine. These differences were not statistically significant. Neither of the solutions resulted in 100% anesthetic success in patients with irreversible pulpitis of mandibular molars.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the influence of metallic dental artifacts on the accuracy of simulated mandibular lesion detection by using multislice technology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifteen macerated mandibles were used. Perforations were done simulating bone lesions and the mandibles were subjected to axial 16 rows multislice CT images using 0.5 mm of slice thickness with 0.3 mm interval of reconstruction. Metallic dental restorations were done and the mandibles were subjected again to CT in the same protocol. The images were analyzed to detect simulated lesions in the mandibles, verifying the loci number and if there was any cortical perforation exposing medullar bone. The analysis was performed by two independent examiners using e-film software. RESULTS: The samples without artifacts presented better results compared to the gold standard (dried mandible with perforations). In the samples without artifacts, all cortical perforation were identified and 46 loci were detected (of 51) in loci number analysis. Among the samples with artifacts, 12 lesions out of 14 were recognized regarding medullar invasion, and 40 out of 51 concerning loci number. The sensitivity in samples without artifacts was 90% and 100% regarding loci number and medullar invasion, respectively. In samples with artifacts, these values dropped to 78% and 86%, respectively. The presence of metallic restorations affected the sensitivity values of the method, but the difference was not significant (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although there were differences in the results of samples with and without artifacts, the presence of metallic restoration did not lead to misinterpretation of the final diagnosis. However, the validity of multislice CT imaging in this study was established for detection of simulated mandibular bone lesions.