Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2010 Winter;57(4):139-44.
doi: 10.2344/0003-3006-57.4.139.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of 2% mepivacaine with 1 : 20,000 levonordefrin versus 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine for maxillary infiltrations

Ingrid Lawaty  1 , Melissa Drum, Al Reader, John Nusstein
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of 2% mepivacaine with 1 : 20,000 levonordefrin versus 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine for maxillary infiltrations

Ingrid Lawaty et al. Anesth Prog. 2010 Winter.

Abstract

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind crossover study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 2% mepivacaine with 1 : 20,000 levonordefrin versus 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine in maxillary central incisors and first molars. Sixty subjects randomly received, in a double-blind manner, maxillary central incisor and first molar infiltrations of 1.8 mL of 2% mepivacaine with 1 : 20,000 levonordefrin and 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine at 2 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. The teeth were electric pulp tested in 2-minute cycles for a total of 60 minutes. Anesthetic success (obtaining 2 consecutive 80 readings with the electric pulp tester within 10 minutes) was not significantly different between 2% mepivacaine with 1 : 20,000 levonordefrin and 2% lidocaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine for the central incisor and first molar. However, neither anesthetic agent provided an hour of pulpal anesthesia.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Incidence of maxillary central incisor pulpal anesthesia as determined by lack of response to electrical pulp testing at the maximum setting (percentage of 80 readings), at each postinjection time interval, for the 2 anesthetic formulations. There were no significant differences (P < .05) between the solutions.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Incidence of maxillary first molar pulpal anesthesia as determined by lack of response to electrical pulp testing at the maximum setting (percentage of 80 readings), at each postinjection time interval, for the 2 anesthetic formulations. There were no significant differences (P < .05) between the solutions.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Mumford J. M., Geddes I. C. Trail of carbocaine in conservative dentistry. Br Dent J. 1961;110:92–94.
    1. Weil C., Santangelo C., Welham F., Yackel R. Clinical evaluation of mepivacaine hydrochloride by a new method. J Am Dent Assoc. 1961;63:26–32. - PubMed
    1. Hiatt W. Local anesthesia: history, potential toxicity, clinical investigation of mepivacaine. Dent Clin N Am. 1961. pp. 243–256.
    1. Stibbs G. D., Korn J. H. An evaluation of the local anesthetic, mepivacaine hydrochloride, in operative dentistry. J Prosthet Dent. 1964;14:355–364.
    1. Cowan A. Minimum dosage technique in the clinical comparison of representative modern local anesthetic agents. J Dent Res. 1964;43:149–154. - PubMed

Publication types