Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41952918›Full record

ArticleJournal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine2026

Efficacy of the TuttleNumbNow anesthesia protocol for mandibular first molars: a retrospective study.

Gregory K Tuttle, Carter K Newell, LaDawn Boucher, Jill Taylor, Jared J Tuttle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Gregory K TuttleTuttle Family Dental, Orem, UT, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2453-8854
Carter K NewellSchool of Dentistry, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0767-7449
LaDawn BoucherTuttle Family Dental, Orem, UT, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-7975-3848
Jill TaylorTuttleNumbNow LLC, Provo, UT, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4971-5898
Jared J TuttleJoe R. and Teresa Lozano Long School of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5088-1086

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) is the standard anesthetic approach for mandibular first molars; however, it has well-documented limitations, including variable success rates, delayed onset, higher anesthetic dose requirements, and potential complications. The TuttleNumbNow (TNN) anesthesia protocol introduces intraosseous (IO) injections as the primary anesthetic modality, followed by infiltration and IANB as a last resort. This approach seeks to provide rapid site-specific anesthesia at reduced pharmacological doses. This study evaluated the clinical efficacy of the TNN protocol for mandibular first molar procedures in a private practice setting. Methods: This retrospective observational study reviewed patient records from Tuttle Family Dental (Orem, Utah, USA) between January and December 2023. Eligible cases included patients undergoing composite restorations, crown preparations, or crown seating on the mandibular first molars, where anesthesia was administered according to the TNN protocol. Data were extracted from Eaglesoft electronic dental records and categorized as follows: no anesthetic, single-agent TNN (articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 or mepivacaine 3% without epinephrine), dual-agent TNN, or conversion to IANB. Descriptive statistics summarized the anesthetic regimens, and Fisher's exact test assessed the association between procedure type and IANB conversion. Results: In total, 184 cases (74 composites, 57 crown preparations, and 53 crown seats) were included. One-quarter of the procedures (47; 24.9%) required no local anesthesia. Of the 137 cases requiring anesthesia, 88 (64.2%) were managed with a single agent, 41 (29.9%) with dual agents, and 8 (5.8%) required an IANB. Overall, 129 of the 137 cases (94.2%) were successfully completed without IANB. The need for IANB was significantly associated with procedure type (P = 0.0008), occurring most frequently during crown preparations (7 of 57 cases, 12.3%). Conclusion: The TNN anesthesia protocol achieved profound anesthesia in 94.2% of mandibular first molar cases without requiring IANB, demonstrating its effectiveness as a primary anesthetic strategy. Compared with traditional IANB, the TNN approach offers rapid-onset, site-specific anesthesia while reducing patient anesthetic exposure and postoperative complications. These findings support reframing IO anesthesia from a secondary "rescue" technique to an effective first-line modality. Prospective multicenter studies are warranted to validate its efficacy in broader patient populations.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, DentalAnesthesia, LocalInjections, IntraosseousMandibleMolar, First

Identifiers

PMID41952918
PMCPMC13053193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.