CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT04947267Updated Jul 1, 2021

To Compare the Pulpal Oxygen Saturation Level After Administering Mepivacaine With and Without Vasoconstrictor

A Phase 2 interventional study of 3% Mepivacaine Hydrochloride and 2% Mepivacaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in LOCAL ANESTHESIA, sponsored by Afshan Amjad Ali. Completed at 1 site in Pakistan. Open to participants aged 15 Years to 50 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-07-01.

Sponsored by Afshan Amjad Ali · Phase 2, Interventional, and Diagnostic

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 3 years after the study started (first participant enrolled May 2018, registered Jun 2021).
Phase
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
60
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
15 Years to 50 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

As vasoconstrictors adversely affect pulpal hemodynamics, this study compared the pulpal oxygen saturation levels after employing inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% mepivacaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (2% Scandonest Special) and 3% mepivacaine (3% Scandonest Plain).Two groups were made with 30 patients in each group. 2% mepivacaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (2% Scandonest Special) was administered to the patients in Group A whereas 3% mepivacaine (3% Scandonest Plain) was administered to the patients in Group B. Rubber dam application, cavity preparation and composite filling was then done on the selected carious mandibular premolar. Pulpal oxygen saturation levels were recorded after administration of local anesthesia with Nellcor-550 pulse oximeter and Nellcor D-YS Multisite reusable sensor.

Read the detailed description

BACKGROUND ' Local anesthesia is the foremost requirement of an efficient operative dental procedure to be executed in a pain free and calm environment. Local anesthesia is available in two forms: with vasoconstrictor and without vasoconstrictor. As vasoconstrictors adversely affect pulpal hemodynamics, this study aims to compare the pulpal oxygen saturation levels after employing inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% mepivacaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (2% Scandonest Special) and 3% mepivacaine (3% Scandonest Plain).

NULL HYPOTHESIS There is no difference between the pulpal oxygen saturation levels after administering 2% mepivacaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 3% mepivacaine.

ALTERNATE HYPOTHESIS There is a difference between the pulpal oxygen saturation levels after administering 2% mepivacaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 3% mepivacaine.

METHOD Two groups were made with 30 patients in each group. 2% mepivacaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (2% Scandonest Special) was administered to the patients in Group A whereas 3% mepivacaine (3% Scandonest Plain) was administered to the patients in Group B. Rubber dam application, cavity preparation and composite filling was then done on the selected carious mandibular premolar. Pulpal oxygen saturation levels were recorded after administration of local anesthesia with the Nellcor- PM 10N pulse oximeter and Nellcor D-YS Multisite reusable sensor.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The statistical package for social sciences version 21.0 is used for statistical analysis. Mean and standard deviation of the pulpal oxygen saturation levels for filled and unfilled teeth under the effect of 2% mepivacaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 3% mepivacaine were recorded. Mixed Way ANOVA will be applied to discern if there is any difference in the pulpal oxygen saturation levels within and between the two groups. Post Hoc Tuckey was applied to identify whether the paired difference is present within groups or between the two groups.

02

Conditions studied

  • LOCAL ANESTHESIA

Keywords

  • pulpal oxygen saturation
03

In context

Lead sponsor

This is the only study on the registry with Afshan Amjad Ali as lead sponsor.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
15 Years to 50 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • Medical status: healthy individuals with no current and past medical findings.
  • Medications: no current medications.
  • Both mature vital ipsilateral mandibular premolars:

    • Healthy premolar (ICDAS code 0)
    • Carious premolar (ICDAS code 4-6).
  • Periapical status

    • Healthy premolar - Periapical Index. (Code 1).
    • Carious premolar - Periapical Index. (Code 1).
  • Periodontal status

    • Healthy premolar - Classification of periodontal diseases and conditions (Code 0).
    • Carious premolar - Classification of periodontal diseases and conditions (Code 0).

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients with oral and maxillofacial syndromes and anomalies.
  • Pregnant and nursing mothers.
  • Class V carious lesions (sensor of pulse oximeter was placed on intact buccal, lingual and cervical surfaces).
  • Teeth with extracoronal restorations.
  • Teeth with developmental defects and other anomalies.
  • Dental trauma.
  • Teeth with symptoms of irreversible pulpitis.
05

Study design

Phase
Phase 2
Primary purpose
Diagnostic
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Quadruple (Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
60 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    3% mepivacaine

    3% mepivacaine was administered via inferior alveolar nerve block.

    Drug: 3% Mepivacaine Hydrochloride

  • Active comparator
    2% mepivacaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine

    2% mepivacaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was administered via inferior alveolar nerve block.

    Drug: 2% Mepivacaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine

Interventions

  • Drug3% Mepivacaine Hydrochloride

    1.8 ml of 3% mepivacaine (3% Scandonest, Septodont) was administered to Group B patients. Inferior alveolar nerve block was administered to both the groups. Rubber dam was then placed in the desired quadrant. Selected carious mandibular was restored and seven pulpal oxygen saturation spot readings were taken for an hour.

    Also known as: 3% scandonest plain

  • Drug2% Mepivacaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine

    1.8 ml of 2% mepivacaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (2% Scandonest Special, Septodont) was administered to Group A patients. Inferior alveolar nerve block was administered to both the groups. Rubber dam was then placed in the desired quadrant. Selected carious mandibular was restored and seven pulpal oxygen saturation spot readings were taken for an hour.

    Also known as: 2% scandonest special

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. PULPAL OXYGEN SATURATION

    Pulpal oxygen saturation levels were recorded for 60 min after administration of local anesthesia using Nellcor-PM10N pulse oximeter and Nellcor D-YS Multisite reusable sensor.

    Time frame: 60 minutes

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Dow University of Health Sciences
    Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jul 1, 2021, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04947267
Lead sponsor
Afshan Amjad Ali
Responsible party
Afshan Amjad Ali (Principal Investigator, Dow University of Health Sciences) — Sponsor-investigator
First posted
Jul 1, 2021
Start date
May 30, 2018
Primary completion
Sep 21, 2019
Completion
Nov 19, 2019
Last update
Jul 1, 2021

Study contacts

AFSHAN AMJAD ALI, MSc
principal investigator · Dow University of Health Sciences

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jun 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion