Pediatric DentistryPhase 4NCT04055116
Buffered Lidocaine in the Pediatric Dental Patient
A Phase 4 study testing Buffered Lidocaine in people with Pediatric Dentistry, run by Geisinger Clinic at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Local anesthetic buffered with sodium bicarbonate has been suggested to reduce pain, discomfort and onset time of local anesthesia on injection into tissue, compared to non-buffered solutions. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 4 to 17 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Pediatric Dentistry
- What is being tested?
- Buffered Lidocaine
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 64 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 11 Nov 2019to 1 Mar 2022
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 4 to 17 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child
Who may be able to join
- Patients requiring restorative or surgical dental treatment on two occasions on opposite sides of the mouth; either both maxillary or both mandibular quadrant/sextant involving comparable teeth/areas
- Patients able to undergo dental treatment in the dental clinic without general anesthesia, sedation, or anxiolysis
- Patients 4-17 years of age
- Patients classified as ASA I or ASA II
- Patients of parents who can read, write and give consent in English
Who cannot join
- Patients with allergy to local anesthetic
- Patients who are pregnant or nursing
- Patients with cardiac concerns or contraindications to epinephrine
- Patients unable to undergo dental treatment in the clinic for behavior or medical reasons
- Patients requiring anxiolysis, sedation, or general anesthesia
- Patients unable to keep dental appointments or return for dental appointments
- Patients who do not meet inclusion criteria
- Patients who experience a missed block (IANB) during injection
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Geisinger Medical Center
Danville, Pennsylvania, 17822
About this study
Official title: Pain Perception Associated With Administration of Buffered Lidocaine Versus Conventional Lidocaine in the Pediatric Dental Patient
Local anesthetic buffered with sodium bicarbonate has been suggested to reduce pain, discomfort and onset time of local anesthesia on injection into tissue, compared to non-buffered solutions. Buffered local anesthesia has been used in medicine, however intraoral injections with buffered solutions are less common in dentistry. Most research has focused on adult perception of pain on administration of buffered local anesthetic. There have been few studies and inconclusive evidence to show that buffered lidocaine reduces the perception of pain on administration in children. The purpose of this interventional study is to assess pain reduction and onset time on injection of buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in children.
Read the detailed description
This project's primary aim is to evaluate pain perception in buffered vs non-buffered local anesthesia in children undergoing routine dental treatment. The secondary aim is to evaluate if the buffered solution results in a faster onset of local anesthesia compared to conventional solution. Through a well-designed study, we hope to contribute to the profession's understanding of advanced local anesthesia techniques in children.
This study has been designed as a longitudinal, double blind, crossover study. Specifically, a split mouth design will be implemented to investigate if there is a significant difference in pain perception between administering buffered local anesthesia versus conventional local anesthesia in a pediatric patient. We will also investigate time of onset of local anesthesia and compare buffered to non-buffered solutions. Patients will be treated by a single pediatric dental resident while being overseen by a board-certified attending pediatric dentist at Geisinger Medical Center (GMC). This study will be implemented upon receiving Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval.
The population of interest includes healthy children aged 4-17yo. Children selected for this study will be assessed using the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification system. In an effort to control for confounding variables, only healthy children classified as ASA I or ASA II will be included in this study. Children selected for this study will have been determined to require treatment on two occasions on opposite sides of the mouth. Patients will not be excluded if they develop localized infection requiring treatment without systemic antibiotics, however, they will only remain in the study if both sides requiring treatment are either free of infection or if both sides have a localized pain or infection requiring treatment without systemic antibiotics. Patients must have no allergy to lidocaine or history of adverse reactions to epinephrine, no history of hyperthyroidism, and no significant cardiovascular disease per recommendations for administration of local anesthetic according to the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD).12 Buffered lidocaine has been approved for use in patients for medical and dental procedures. There is no additional cost to the patient for receiving buffered versus non-buffered solution.
Prior to initiation of treatment, patients will rate their pain using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Scale in order to establish a baseline and to help eliminate confounding variables. Also before treatment, a tooth that will be anesthetized will be probed with a periodontal probe to establish a baseline perception of this sensation without local anesthesia. Upon probing without local anesthesia, the patient will ask if they feel a "pinch," in order to establish this baseline. When asked if they feel a pinch, patients will respond with a "yes" or "no" answer, which will be recorded. Patients will be asked to rate their pain related to administration of solution (the second prompt) once the injection is finished. Patients will be observed during injection and assessed by the operator using the Faces, Legs, Arms, Crying Consolability (FLACC) scale. Immediately after local anesthesia, patients will be asked to rate the pain of injection of solution using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Scale.
After administration of local anesthetic solution, the onset time of soft tissue anesthesia will be measured by using a periodontal probe in the sulcus of the anesthetized tooth or a single tooth in the anesthetized quadrant. This probing will be initiated 15 seconds after initial injection of anesthetic solution and will be repeated at 15 second intervals until local anesthesia is achieved. After each probing attempt, patients will be asked if they felt a "pinch". Once the patient answers "no," the time of onset, in number of seconds to achieve anesthesia from injection to a "no" answer, will be recorded.
Data will be analyzed using t-tests to examine treatment differences. Given patients will be treated with both methods, they will act as their own controls and paired t-tests will be utilized. If covariates are identified (e.g., patients' baseline pain perception), Repeated measure ANOVAs will be utilized with patients as within-subject variable and the patient experience as the outcome.
- Conditions
- Pediatric Dentistry
- Being tested
- Buffered Lidocaine
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Buffered LidocaineDrug
Also called Xylocaine
Investigator will prepare 1:10 dilution of sodium bicarbonate to 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine on one occasion. 8.4% Sodium Bicarbonate will be used.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Unbuffered Lidocaine, then Buffered Lidocaine | Experimental | Subjects will receive an injection of non-buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine on one occasion; they will be randomized to this group. After a minimum of one week, subjects will receive the alternate solution. Receives: Drug: Buffered Lidocaine |
| Buffered Lidocaine, then Unbuffered Lidocaine | Experimental | Investigator will prepare 1:10 dilution of sodium bicarbonate to 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine on one occasion.Subjects will receive an injection of this buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine on one occasion; they will be randomized to this group. After a minimum of one week, subjects will receive the alternate solution.
We will use 8.4% Sodium Bicarbonate manufactured by Hospira, Inc. Lake Forest, IL Receives: Drug: Buffered Lidocaine |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Patient Reported Pain Perception
Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale responses after buffered and non-buffered lidocaine. Range: 0 - No Hurt to 10 - Hurts Worst (higher numbers indicate higher levels of pain). There are no sub-scores.
Measured: Within 1 minute of anesthetic administration
Secondary outcomes (1)
Onset of Soft Tissue Anesthesia
Time to gum numbness, assessed using periodontal probe and patient response.
Measured: Time of injection to 4 minutes post-injection (tested in 15 second intervals).
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted13 Aug 2019
- Study start11 Nov 2019
- Primary completion17 Dec 2021
- Study completion1 Mar 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (12)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Pediatric DentistryStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Model description
- This study has been designed as a longitudinal, double blind, crossover study. Specifically, a split mouth design will be implemented to investigate if there is a significant difference in pain perception between administering buffered local anesthesia versus conventional local anesthesia in a pediatric patient.
- Masking
- Triple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider, Investigator
- Enrolment
- 64 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Geisinger Clinic
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Gayatri Malik, DMD, PhD, Principal investigator, Geisinger Clinic
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04055116
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2019-0408
- Status last verified
- Mar 2023
- First submitted
- 9 Aug 2019
- Last updated
- 7 Apr 2023
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- Yes
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Chopra R, Jindal G, Sachdev V, Sandhu M. Double-Blind Crossover Study to Compare Pain Experience During Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Administration Using Buffered Two Percent Lidocaine in Children. Pediatr Dent. 2016 Jan-Feb;38(1):25-9.
PubMed 26892211Malamed SF, Falkel M. Buffered local anaesthetics: the importance of pH and CO2. SAAD Dig. 2013 Jan;29:9-17. No abstract available.
PubMed 23544217Balasco M, Drum M, Reader A, Nusstein J, Beck M. Buffered lidocaine for incision and drainage: a prospective, randomized double-blind study. J Endod. 2013 Nov;39(11):1329-34. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.07.008. Epub 2013 Sep 5.
PubMed 24139250Afolabi O, Murphy A, Chung B, Lalonde DH. The effect of buffering on pain and duration of local anesthetic in the face: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Can J Plast Surg. 2013 Winter;21(4):209-12.
PubMed 24497759Cepeda MS, Tzortzopoulou A, Thackrey M, Hudcova J, Arora Gandhi P, Schumann R. Adjusting the pH of lidocaine for reducing pain on injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Dec 8;(12):CD006581. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006581.pub2.
PubMed 21154371McKay W, Morris R, Mushlin P. Sodium bicarbonate attenuates pain on skin infiltration with lidocaine, with or without epinephrine. Anesth Analg. 1987 Jun;66(6):572-4. No abstract available.
PubMed 3034106Kurien RS, Goswami M, Singh S. Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of warm, buffered and conventional 2% lignocaine for the success of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in mandibular primary molars: A randomized controlled clinical trial. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2018 Spring;12(2):102-109. doi: 10.15171/joddd.2018.016. Epub 2018 Jun 20.
PubMed 30087760Aulestia-Viera PV, Braga MM, Borsatti MA. The effect of adjusting the pH of local anaesthetics in dentistry: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Endod J. 2018 Aug;51(8):862-876. doi: 10.1111/iej.12899. Epub 2018 Feb 21.
PubMed 29377171Comerci AW, Maller SC, Townsend RD, Teepe JD, Vandewalle KS. Effect of a new local anesthetic buffering device on pain reduction during nerve block injections. Gen Dent. 2015 Nov-Dec;63(6):74-8.
PubMed 26545279Guo J, Yin K, Roges R, Enciso R. Efficacy of sodium bicarbonate buffered versus non-buffered lidocaine with epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve block: A meta-analysis. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Jun;18(3):129-142. doi: 10.17245/jdapm.2018.18.3.129. Epub 2018 Jun 29.
PubMed 29984317Hobeich P, Simon S, Schneiderman E, He J. A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of the injection pain and anesthetic onset of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine buffered with 5% and 10% sodium bicarbonate in maxillary infiltrations. J Endod. 2013 May;39(5):597-9. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.01.008. Epub 2013 Mar 20.
PubMed 23611375Bartfield JM, Homer PJ, Ford DT, Sternklar P. Buffered lidocaine as a local anesthetic: an investigation of shelf life. Ann Emerg Med. 1992 Jan;21(1):16-9. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(05)82230-9.
PubMed 1539881
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 7 Apr 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Pain Perception Associated With Administration of Buffered Lidocaine Versus Conventional Lidocaine in the Pediatric Dental Patient
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04055116
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2019-0408
- Conditions
- Pediatric Dentistry
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 64 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Geisinger ClinicUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 11 Nov 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 17 Dec 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Mar 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 13 Aug 2019 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 7 Apr 2023
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Local anesthetic buffered with sodium bicarbonate has been suggested to reduce pain, discomfort and onset time of local anesthesia on injection into tissue, compared to non-buffered solutions. Buffered local anesthesia has been used in medicine, however intraoral injections with buffered solutions are less common in dentistry. Most research has focused on adult perception of pain on administration of buffered local anesthetic. There have been few studies and inconclusive evidence to show that buffered lidocaine reduces the perception of pain on administration in children. The purpose of this interventional study is to assess pain reduction and onset time on injection of buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in children.
Detailed description
This project's primary aim is to evaluate pain perception in buffered vs non-buffered local anesthesia in children undergoing routine dental treatment. The secondary aim is to evaluate if the buffered solution results in a faster onset of local anesthesia compared to conventional solution. Through a well-designed study, we hope to contribute to the profession's understanding of advanced local anesthesia techniques in children.
This study has been designed as a longitudinal, double blind, crossover study. Specifically, a split mouth design will be implemented to investigate if there is a significant difference in pain perception between administering buffered local anesthesia versus conventional local anesthesia in a pediatric patient. We will also investigate time of onset of local anesthesia and compare buffered to non-buffered solutions. Patients will be treated by a single pediatric dental resident while being overseen by a board-certified attending pediatric dentist at Geisinger Medical Center (GMC). This study will be implemented upon receiving Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval.
The population of interest includes healthy children aged 4-17yo. Children selected for this study will be assessed using the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification system. In an effort to control for confounding variables, only healthy children classified as ASA I or ASA II will be included in this study. Children selected for this study will have been determined to require treatment on two occasions on opposite sides of the mouth. Patients will not be excluded if they develop localized infection requiring treatment without systemic antibiotics, however, they will only remain in the study if both sides requiring treatment are either free of infection or if both sides have a localized pain or infection requiring treatment without systemic antibiotics. Patients must have no allergy to lidocaine or history of adverse reactions to epinephrine, no history of hyperthyroidism, and no significant cardiovascular disease per recommendations for administration of local anesthetic according to the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD).12 Buffered lidocaine has been approved for use in patients for medical and dental procedures. There is no additional cost to the patient for receiving buffered versus non-buffered solution.
Prior to initiation of treatment, patients will rate their pain using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Scale in order to establish a baseline and to help eliminate confounding variables. Also before treatment, a tooth that will be anesthetized will be probed with a periodontal probe to establish a baseline perception of this sensation without local anesthesia. Upon probing without local anesthesia, the patient will ask if they feel a "pinch," in order to establish this baseline. When asked if they feel a pinch, patients will respond with a "yes" or "no" answer, which will be recorded. Patients will be asked to rate their pain related to administration of solution (the second prompt) once the injection is finished. Patients will be observed during injection and assessed by the operator using the Faces, Legs, Arms, Crying Consolability (FLACC) scale. Immediately after local anesthesia, patients will be asked to rate the pain of injection of solution using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Scale.
After administration of local anesthetic solution, the onset time of soft tissue anesthesia will be measured by using a periodontal probe in the sulcus of the anesthetized tooth or a single tooth in the anesthetized quadrant. This probing will be initiated 15 seconds after initial injection of anesthetic solution and will be repeated at 15 second intervals until local anesthesia is achieved. After each probing attempt, patients will be asked if they felt a "pinch". Once the patient answers "no," the time of onset, in number of seconds to achieve anesthesia from injection to a "no" answer, will be recorded.
Data will be analyzed using t-tests to examine treatment differences. Given patients will be treated with both methods, they will act as their own controls and paired t-tests will be utilized. If covariates are identified (e.g., patients' baseline pain perception), Repeated measure ANOVAs will be utilized with patients as within-subject variable and the patient experience as the outcome.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Triple blind (participant, care provider, investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- This study has been designed as a longitudinal, double blind, crossover study. Specifically, a split mouth design will be implemented to investigate if there is a significant difference in pain perception between administering buffered local anesthesia versus conventional local anesthesia in a pediatric patient.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Unbuffered Lidocaine, then Buffered Lidocaine | Experimental | Drug: Buffered LidocaineSubjects will receive an injection of non-buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine on one occasion; they will be randomized to this group. After a minimum of one week, subjects will receive the alternate solution. |
| Buffered Lidocaine, then Unbuffered Lidocaine | Experimental | Drug: Buffered LidocaineInvestigator will prepare 1:10 dilution of sodium bicarbonate to 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine on one occasion.Subjects will receive an injection of this buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine on one occasion; they will be randomized to this group. After a minimum of one week, subjects will receive the alternate solution. We will use 8.4% Sodium Bicarbonate manufactured by Hospira, Inc. Lake Forest, IL |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 4 to 17 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Patients requiring restorative or surgical dental treatment on two occasions on opposite sides of the mouth; either both maxillary or both mandibular quadrant/sextant involving comparable teeth/areas
- Patients able to undergo dental treatment in the dental clinic without general anesthesia, sedation, or anxiolysis
- Patients 4-17 years of age
- Patients classified as ASA I or ASA II
- Patients of parents who can read, write and give consent in English
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Patients with allergy to local anesthetic
- Patients who are pregnant or nursing
- Patients with cardiac concerns or contraindications to epinephrine
- Patients unable to undergo dental treatment in the clinic for behavior or medical reasons
- Patients requiring anxiolysis, sedation, or general anesthesia
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Buffered LidocaineAlso: XylocaineInvestigator will prepare 1:10 dilution of sodium bicarbonate to 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine on one occasion. 8.4% Sodium Bicarbonate will be used. | Drug | Buffered Lidocaine, then Unbuffered Lidocaine, Unbuffered Lidocaine, then Buffered Lidocaine |
Primary outcome
Patient Reported Pain Perception
Time frame: Within 1 minute of anesthetic administration
Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale responses after buffered and non-buffered lidocaine. Range: 0 - No Hurt to 10 - Hurts Worst (higher numbers indicate higher levels of pain). There are no sub-scores.
1 secondary outcome
Onset of Soft Tissue Anesthesia
Time frame: Time of injection to 4 minutes post-injection (tested in 15 second intervals).
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 7 Apr 2023.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 26892211Chopra R, Jindal G, Sachdev V, Sandhu M. Double-Blind Crossover Study to Compare Pain Experience During Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Administration Using Buffered Two Percent Lidocaine in Children. Pediatr Dent. 2016 Jan-Feb;38(1):25-9.
- Background: PubMed 23544217Malamed SF, Falkel M. Buffered local anaesthetics: the importance of pH and CO2. SAAD Dig. 2013 Jan;29:9-17. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 24139250Balasco M, Drum M, Reader A, Nusstein J, Beck M. Buffered lidocaine for incision and drainage: a prospective, randomized double-blind study. J Endod. 2013 Nov;39(11):1329-34. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.07.008. Epub 2013 Sep 5.
- Background: PubMed 24497759Afolabi O, Murphy A, Chung B, Lalonde DH. The effect of buffering on pain and duration of local anesthetic in the face: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Can J Plast Surg. 2013 Winter;21(4):209-12.
- Background: PubMed 21154371Cepeda MS, Tzortzopoulou A, Thackrey M, Hudcova J, Arora Gandhi P, Schumann R. Adjusting the pH of lidocaine for reducing pain on injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Dec 8;(12):CD006581. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006581.pub2.
- Background: PubMed 3034106McKay W, Morris R, Mushlin P. Sodium bicarbonate attenuates pain on skin infiltration with lidocaine, with or without epinephrine. Anesth Analg. 1987 Jun;66(6):572-4. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 30087760Kurien RS, Goswami M, Singh S. Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of warm, buffered and conventional 2% lignocaine for the success of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) in mandibular primary molars: A randomized controlled clinical trial. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2018 Spring;12(2):102-109. doi: 10.15171/joddd.2018.016. Epub 2018 Jun 20.
- Background: PubMed 29377171Aulestia-Viera PV, Braga MM, Borsatti MA. The effect of adjusting the pH of local anaesthetics in dentistry: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Endod J. 2018 Aug;51(8):862-876. doi: 10.1111/iej.12899. Epub 2018 Feb 21.
- Background: PubMed 26545279Comerci AW, Maller SC, Townsend RD, Teepe JD, Vandewalle KS. Effect of a new local anesthetic buffering device on pain reduction during nerve block injections. Gen Dent. 2015 Nov-Dec;63(6):74-8.
- Background: PubMed 29984317Guo J, Yin K, Roges R, Enciso R. Efficacy of sodium bicarbonate buffered versus non-buffered lidocaine with epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve block: A meta-analysis. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Jun;18(3):129-142. doi: 10.17245/jdapm.2018.18.3.129. Epub 2018 Jun 29.
- Background: PubMed 23611375Hobeich P, Simon S, Schneiderman E, He J. A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of the injection pain and anesthetic onset of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine buffered with 5% and 10% sodium bicarbonate in maxillary infiltrations. J Endod. 2013 May;39(5):597-9. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.01.008. Epub 2013 Mar 20.
- Background: PubMed 1539881Bartfield JM, Homer PJ, Ford DT, Sternklar P. Buffered lidocaine as a local anesthetic: an investigation of shelf life. Ann Emerg Med. 1992 Jan;21(1):16-9. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(05)82230-9.
- Amerian Academy of Pediatric Dentistry Council on Clinical Affairs. Use of local anesthesia for pediatric denta patients.Link provided by the sponsor.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Pediatric Dentistry
Recruiting
Comparison of Digital Intraosseous and Manual Intraligamentary Anesthesia in Children
Anesthesia, Local
Not yet recruiting
Safety of Intraosseous Anaesthesia in Children With Haemophilia
Haemophilia A, Haemophilia B
Recruiting
Comparative Evaluation of Intranasal Atomized Midazalom Combined With Nitrous Oxide Versus Nitrous Oxide Monotherapy
Dental Anxiety in Children, Child Behaviour
Not yet recruiting
Clinical Performance of Glass Hybrid and Alkasite Restorative Systems in MIH-Affected Permanent First Molars
Molar-Incisor Hypomineralization (MIH)
Not yet recruiting
3D-Printed Resin Crowns Versus Bioflx Crowns in Primary Molars
Dental Restorations in Children, Pediatric Dentistry
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Gayatri Malik, DMD, PhD principal investigator
Geisinger Clinic
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 4 study testing Buffered Lidocaine in people with Pediatric Dentistry, run by Geisinger Clinic at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 8 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 7 Apr 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 4 studies take place after a treatment is approved, to learn more about its long-term benefits and risks in everyday use.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 7 Apr 2023). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Patient Reported Pain Perception (time frame: Within 1 minute of anesthetic administration). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04055116, which also lists 12 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 7 Apr 2023.