Intrapocket Anesthesia for Scaling and Root Planing: Results of a Double‐Blind Multicenter Trial Using Lidocaine Prilocaine Dental Gel

Background: The efficacy of a novel anesthetic gel (lidocaine 25 mg/g plus prilocaine 25 mg/g in thermosetting agents) for non‐invasive periodontal pocket anesthesia was evaluated. Methods: One hundred twenty‐two (122) patients in 8 centers with moderate to severe periodontitis requiring scaling and...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of periodontology (1970) 2001-07, Vol.72 (7), p.895-900
Main Authors: Jeffcoat, Marjorie K., Geurs, Nico C., Magnusson, Ingvar, MacNeill, Simon R., Mickels, Nancy, Roberts, Frank, Robinson, Peter, Salamati, Afshin, Yukna, Ray
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Administration, Topical
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Anesthesia, Dental
Anesthesia, Local
Anesthesia, topical
Anesthetics, Local - administration & dosage
clinical trials, controlled
Dental Scaling
Dentistry
Double-Blind Method
double‐blind studies
Female
Gels
Humans
Lidocaine - administration & dosage
Male
Middle Aged
Pain Measurement
Periodontal Pocket - therapy
periodontal pockets/surgery
Periodontitis - therapy
Placebos
planing
Prilocaine - administration & dosage
Root Planing
scaling
Statistics as Topic
Treatment Outcome
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background: The efficacy of a novel anesthetic gel (lidocaine 25 mg/g plus prilocaine 25 mg/g in thermosetting agents) for non‐invasive periodontal pocket anesthesia was evaluated. Methods: One hundred twenty‐two (122) patients in 8 centers with moderate to severe periodontitis requiring scaling and root planing (SRP) were enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, controlled clinical trial. The active dental gel or a matching placebo gel was applied into the periodontal pocket using a blunt applicator. Following a waiting period of 30 seconds to 2 minutes, scaling and root planing were performed. If the patient had any discomfort, a second application of the gel was applied. If the patient continued to experience discomfort, conventional anesthesia was offered. After all teeth in the test quadrant had received SRP, the overall pain was assessed by the patient using a 100 mm horizontal, ungraded visual analog scale in which the left side was marked “no pain” and the right side marked “worst pain imaginable.” Patients also assessed pain by using a 5‐point verbal rating scale, from “no pain” to “very severe pain.” Results: The visual analog scale showed significant reductions in reported pain, favoring the active gel over the placebo (mean reduction, 8 mm; P
ISSN:0022-3492
1943-3670
DOI:10.1902/jop.2001.72.7.895