A Comparison of the effect of lidocaine, articaine and mepivacaine on pulpal anesthesia in maxillary molars with irreversible pulpitis (double-blind randomized trial)

Comparison of the effect of lidocaine, articaine and mepivacaine on pulpal anesthesia in maxillary molars with irreversible pulpitis Determining the percentage of anesthesia in the group receiving lidocaine, articaine and mepivacaine Comparison of anesthesia in groups receiving lidocaine, articaine and mepivacaine based on gender and age Determining the mean time of onset of anesthesia in lidocaine, articaine and mepivacaine groups Comparison of mean onset time of anesthesia of lidocaine, articaine and mepivacaine groups Comparison of cold response percentage in three groups of lidocaine, articaine and mepivacaine

Double-blind clinical trial with 114 samples with three parallel and randomized groups with six permutation blocks

Due to the importance of creating deep anesthesia in dental treatments, this study will be performed in Guilan Dental School. In this study, 114 maxillary first or second molars in people with irreversible pulpitis were divided into three groups of 38 and each group was injected with one of three types of anesthesia: mepivacaine, lidocaine and articaine. After injection using an electronic pulp tester And the cold test is checked every two minutes for up to 10 minutes. The teeth that were anesthetized will be treated. If the painless treatment is successful, it will be classified as a success in creating anesthesia.

Patients over 16 years of age and under 65 years of age who have not had any systemic disease or have taken any medication, have not smoked without a history of allergy to anesthesia, have not taken painkillers within 24 hours, are not pregnant or breastfeeding.

Lidocaine group Mepivacaine group Articaine Group

anesthesia

For randomization, the block randomization method with 4 permutation blocks will be used. For this reason, considering that the study is double-blind and only analysts are aware of the study groups, considering the blind therapies A, B and C, the order of assigning treatment to individuals based on the time of their study will be as follows: (The complete randomization file is available as an Excel file. The randomization was done with SAS software version 9): Seed: 117257145755086 Block sizes: 6 Actual list length: 114 block identifier, block size, sequence within block, treatment • 1, 6, 1, Group C • 1, 6, 2, Group B • 1, 6, 3, Group C • 1, 6, 4, Group A • 1, 6, 5, Group A • 1, 6, 6, Group B • 2, 6, 1, Group B • 2, 6, 2, Group C

All patients are divided into three experimental groups by block randomized randomization. Patients are classified into four subgroups based on sex and tooth type (maxillary first or second molars). Patients in each subgroup are then randomly assigned to lidocaine, articaine, and mepivacaine groups using six blocks. Equal number of lidocaine and articaine and mepi-cocaine cartridges are prepared and given a code. To hide random allocation, a code-aware nurse randomly provides cartridges to clinicians based on groups (lidocaine, articaine, and mepivacaine). There is a code for each packed cartridge. One clinician fills out a questionnaire. And another clinician does the injections. All injections are performed by a clinician. This is a double-blind study, meaning that the clinician performing the injections, the patient, the person evaluating the outcome, and the statistician are not aware of the type of anesthetic