• J G Meechan, P F Day, and A S McMillan.
• Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dental School, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. J.G.Meechan@ncl.ac.uk
• Anesth Prog. 2000 Jan 1;47(4):139-42.

AbstractIt was the purpose of the present investigation to determine if there were differences in soft-tissue anesthesia in the palate following infiltration and greater palatine nerve block anesthesia and to compare lidocaine with lidocaine plus epinephrine as palatal soft tissue anesthetics. Two studies using 10 volunteers were performed. In one trial, volunteers received a palatal infiltration opposite the second maxillary bicuspid on one side and a greater palatine nerve block on the other. Response to sharp probing and pain-pressure thresholds were measured on each side over a 1-hour census period. In the second trial, volunteers received 2% plain lidocaine as a palatal infiltration on one side and a similar infiltration of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine on the other in a double-blind randomized fashion. Response to sharp probing was assessed over a 55-minute period. Data were analyzed using Student's paired t tests. The response to sharp probing and pressure-pain thresholds did not differ between palatal infiltration and greater palatine nerve block over the 1-hour period. Lidocaine with epinephrine provided longer lasting anesthesia than plain lidocaine following palatal infiltration (P < .001). Greater palatine nerve block and palatal infiltration provide similar soft-tissue anesthesia. Lidocaine with epinephrine produces longer-lasting soft-tissue anesthesia than plain lidocaine following palatal infiltration.

33 keywords...

hide…