2%-Mepivacaine With Two Different Vasoconstrictors Solutions in Third Molar Surgery a Comparative Study

NCT ID: NCT02603198

Last Updated: 2016-05-11

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

UNKNOWN

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

30 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2014-08-31

Study Completion Date

2016-07-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Dental treatments, particularly third molars extraction, can become extremely uncomfortable and painful. They are associated to anxiety, fear and many other unpleasant sensations. During surgery, patients can present cardiorespiratory repercussions of these sensations. This fact generally justifies the employment of methods of monitoring and appliance of safer therapeutic alternatives. Local anesthetics are the most frequently drugs used in dentistry. Vasoconstrictors, particularly epinephrine, are important components of anesthetic solutions to increased time for anesthetic absorption and consequently increasing the duration of anesthesia. The use of smaller amounts of anesthetic solution can reduce the risk of systemic toxicity, however decrease the total surgical time. It is well known that the amount of epinephrine injected into patients during anesthetic procedures can produce adverse hemodynamic effects. Levonordefrin was adding to dental cartridges promising to reduce cardiac stimulation due it less β activity, and maintain the same clinical and systemic effects. But some studies for maxillary or intraosseous infiltrations showed no difference in heart rate and any anesthetic success over epinephrine. Thus, this study aims to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of anesthetic mepivacaine 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000 or 1:20,000 levonordefrin employing a clinical trial model of third molars extractions in healthy adults.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

30 healthy patients, both gender between 18 and 40 years-of-age with the necessity of bilateral third molar removal with similar surgical difficulty will be recruited from a Dental Public University Clinic. Inclusion criteria includes: non-smoking participants, minimum of 50 Kg of weight. After clinical and radiographic examination, they will be randomized accordingly to the side to be operated in two groups: MEPI-LEVO and MEPI-EPI. There will be a memory-washout of 15days between surgeries. In the MEPI-LEVO group, the patient will receive local anesthesia employing 2% chloridrato mepivacaine with 1:20.000 levonordefrin at a maximum of four cartridges of anesthesia. The other side will receive 2%chloridrato mepivacaine with 1:100.000 epinephrine in the same maximum amount. The surgery in both groups will follow strictly patterns of minimum surgical trauma and high cautious antiseptic conditions. The same surgeon will do the tooth extractions but the anesthesia will be done by another oral surgeon in order to blind the type of anesthetic solution from the operator (type of vasoconstrictor used). The amount of bleeding will be quantified just immediately after suture by a blinded observer that will record in a visual analogical scale between 0 and 10 points, where 0 correspond to absence of bleeding and 10 to excessive bleeding.

Blood pressure and heart rate will be accessed in five different moments:

1. 20minutes before surgical procedure with patients in awaiting room;
2. 5 minutes before procedure with patient seated in dental chair;
3. 5 minutes after anesthesia procedure;
4. during osteotomy/tooth sectioning and
5. after 10 minutes of suturing.

Patients after surgery will receive a diary to record the time when anesthesia sensation had ended, the amount of analgesics they had consumed and the level of pain in a visual analogic scale. The data will be submitted to statistical analysis with p\<0.05 of significance.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Pain Trismus Edema

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

DOUBLE

Participants Investigators

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

mepivacaine chloridrato epinephrine

Side of operation that is going to receive anesthesia with 2% mepivacaine chloridrato with 1:100.000 epinephrine, maximum of 4 cartridges

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

mepivacaine chloridrato epinephrine

Intervention Type DRUG

local anesthesia for tooth removal

mepivacaine chloridrato levonordefrin

Side of operation that is going to receive anesthesia with 2% mepivacaine chloridrato with 1:20.000 levonordefrin, maximum of 4 cartridges

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

mepivacaine chloridrato levonordefrin

Intervention Type DRUG

local anesthesia for tooth removal

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

mepivacaine chloridrato epinephrine

local anesthesia for tooth removal

Intervention Type DRUG

mepivacaine chloridrato levonordefrin

local anesthesia for tooth removal

Intervention Type DRUG

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

local anesthesia local anesthesia

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* minimum body weight of 50Kg, necessity of bilateral impacted third molar removal

Exclusion Criteria

\-
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

40 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

University of Sao Paulo

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Maria Cristina Zindel Deboni

Associate Professor

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Marcelo Minharro Cechetti, PhD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Post - Doctorate

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Maria Cristina Zindel Deboni

São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Brazil

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Ezmek B, Arslan A, Delilbasi C, Sencift K. Comparison of hemodynamic effects of lidocaine, prilocaine and mepivacaine solutions without vasoconstrictor in hypertensive patients. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010 Jul-Aug;18(4):354-9. doi: 10.1590/s1678-77572010000400006.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 20835569 (View on PubMed)

Hersh EV, Giannakopoulos H. Beta-adrenergic blocking agents and dental vasoconstrictors. Dent Clin North Am. 2010 Oct;54(4):687-96. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2010.06.009.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 20831932 (View on PubMed)

Serrera Figallo MA, Velazquez Cayon RT, Torres Lagares D, Corcuera Flores JR, Machuca Portillo G. Use of anesthetics associated to vasoconstrictors for dentistry in patients with cardiopathies. Review of the literature published in the last decade. J Clin Exp Dent. 2012 Apr 1;4(2):e107-11. doi: 10.4317/jced.50590. eCollection 2012 Apr.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 24558534 (View on PubMed)

Pellicer-Chover H, Cervera-Ballester J, Sanchis-Bielsa JM, Penarrocha-Diago MA, Penarrocha-Diago M, Garcia-Mira B. Comparative split-mouth study of the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 0.5% bupivacaine in impacted mandibular third molar extraction. J Clin Exp Dent. 2013 Apr 1;5(2):e66-71. doi: 10.4317/jced.50869. eCollection 2013 Apr 1.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 24455059 (View on PubMed)

Torres-Lagares D, Serrera-Figallo MA, Machuca-Portillo G, Corcuera-Flores JR, Machuca-Portillo C, Castillo-Oyague R, Gutierrez-Perez JL. Cardiovascular effect of dental anesthesia with articaine (40 mg with epinefrine 0,5 mg % and 40 mg with epinefrine 1 mg%) versus mepivacaine (30 mg and 20 mg with epinefrine 1 mg%) in medically compromised cardiac patients: a cross-over, randomized, single blinded study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012 Jul 1;17(4):e655-60. doi: 10.4317/medoral.17892.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 22322521 (View on PubMed)

Lawaty I, Drum M, Reader A, Nusstein J. 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. Anesth Prog. 2010 Winter;57(4):139-44. doi: 10.2344/0003-3006-57.4.139.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 21174567 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

34147114500000068

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Jaw Muscle Pain Post Wisdom Molar Surgery
NCT07094542 NOT_YET_RECRUITING PHASE2
Reducing Pain From Wisdom Molar Extractions
NCT05335070 RECRUITING PHASE2