Muhammad Qasim Javed

Background and Objectives: Lidocaine Hydrochloride has been the standard choice for local anesthesia in dentistry and Articaine’s unique structure and growing popularity make it a viable alternative. Due to contradictory results in prior research and a scarcity of trials conducted in the Pakistani population, this study aims to compare the anesthetic efficacy of Lidocaine with Articaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Materials and Methods: This double-blinded, randomized controlled trial included 152 patients who were selected by consecutive non-probability sampling. The participants included patients who presented with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth (molars and premolars) and depicted normal apical tissue radiographically. The patients were equally and randomly divided into two groups. The control group received 2% Lidocaine Hydrochloride injections, and the experiment group received 4% Articaine Hydrochloride injections. Participants scored their pain on the HP-VAS both before and after the administration of anesthesia. A value of 54 mm or less on the scale indicated effective anesthesia. The data obtained were analyzed using SPSS. Chi-square test was applied to analyze data for statistical significance. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the efficacy of the two anesthetic agents. During access cavity preparation, Lidocaine demonstrated a success rate of 93%, whereas Articaine exhibited a slightly higher success rate of 97%. During initial instrumentation, the success rates for Lidocaine and Articaine were 72% and 71%, respectively. This suggests that both Lidocaine and Articaine were effective in achieving anesthesia during the dental procedure in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, with Articaine showing a slightly better success rate, although the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions: The anesthetic efficacy of Articaine is similar to that of lidocaine in subjects with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Hence, Articaine can serve as an alternative to Lidocaine for local anesthesia administration in dentistry.

Background Regenerative endodontics (RET) refers to biologically based procedures that aim to restore damaged tooth structures and reinstate the pulp–dentine complex to its normal physiological state. Aim The purpose of this study was to examine the attitudes and practices of endodontists and paediatric dentists regarding RET. Design A survey was conducted among endodontists and paediatric dentists from 13 countries. A number of factors were evaluated, including frequency of RET application, followed guidelines, disinfection techniques, intracanal medication type, scaffold type, preferred coronal seal material, and follow‐up period. Results Among the 1394 respondents, 853 (61.2%) and 541 (38.8%) were endodontists and paediatric dentists, respectively. Almost half (43%) of participants have not performed RET yet. The American Association of Endodontics guideline (47.3%) was selected as the primary source for the clinical protocol. The most frequently selected irrigant solution was 1.5%–3% NaOCl at the first (26.1%) and second (13.6%) sessions. A blood clot (68.7%) and MTA (61.9%) were the most frequently selected scaffold type and coronal barrier. Most participants preferred a 6‐month follow‐up period. Conclusion According to this survey, deviations exist from current RET guidelines regarding all aspects evaluated. Standardizing clinical protocols and adhering to available guidelines would help to ensure more predictable outcomes.