+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      In-practice evaluation of OraVerse for the reversal of soft-tissue anesthesia after dental procedures.

      Compendium of continuing education in dentistry (Jamesburg, N.J. : 1995)

      Injections, Adolescent, Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists, therapeutic use, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anesthesia, Dental, Anesthetics, Local, administration & dosage, antagonists & inhibitors, Carticaine, Child, Child, Preschool, Dentist's Practice Patterns, Epinephrine, Humans, adverse effects, Lidocaine, Lip, drug effects, Middle Aged, Patient Satisfaction, Phentolamine, Recovery of Function, Sensation, Time Factors, Tongue, Treatment Outcome, Vasoconstrictor Agents, Young Adult

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          This study investigated the pattern of use, dentist evaluation, and patient assessment of OraVerse (OV), a solution of phentolamine mesylate formulated for intraoral submucosal injection and used for the reversal of soft anesthesia after dental procedures. Participants were provided the drug for treatment of up to 10 patients each and agreed to complete a 26-item evaluation questionnaire at the end of the clinical assessment. Data were available from 51 dentists reporting on 390 patients 4 to 90 years of age. A total of 394 dental procedures were performed: 224 (57%) in the mandible and 170 (43%) in the maxilla. Local anesthetics most frequently used were lidocaine/epinephrine (66.4%) and articaine/epinephrine (23.6%). In 81.5% of cases, OV was administered after restorative procedures. This OV dose was given as one-half, one, and two cartridges in 11.8%, 76.7%, and 10.3% of patients, respectively. An adverse reaction at the injection site was reported in 19 patients (4.9%). The median times to return to normal after injection were 60 minutes for lip sensation, 57.5 minutes for tongue sensation, and 60 minutes for oral function. Patients reported reduced duration of oral numbness (92%) and improved dental experiences (84%) after use. A total of 83% of patients said they would recommend the medication to others and 79% said they would opt for OV in the future. Dentists reported that the medication addressed an existing need (86%), met expectations (82%), was a practice differentiator (55%) and a practice builder (45%), and improved scheduling (29%). In this in-practice clinical evaluation, times to return to normal oral sensation and function after OV administration were consistent with those reported in randomized clinical studies. Both patient and dentist satisfaction rates were high.

          Related collections

          Author and article information



          Comment on this article