Efficacy of 4 % Articaine and 2 % Lidocaine: A Clinical Study

Overview

Journal J Maxillofac Oral Surg

Date 2014 Jan 17

PMID 24431806

Citations 26

Authors

Deepashri H Kambalimath

R S Dolas

H V Kambalimath

S M Agrawal

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: This study was undertaken to compare the anesthetic properties of 4 % Articaine hydrochloride and 2 % Lidocaine both with 1:100,000 epinephrine for mandibular inferior alveolar nerve anesthesia.

Materials And Methods: Thirty healthy patients were included in this randomized double-blind clinical cross over study. Each subject received each test solution at different times. Inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia was used for extraction of bilateral impacted mandibular third molar on different occassions. The time of onset of action, duration of anesthesia, efficacy of anesthesia, hemodynamic parameters and oxygen saturation were monitored during the procedure. A visual analog scale was used to assess pain during surgery, and thus subjectively evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of the two solutions.

Results: No statistically significant differences were seen in the onset and duration of anesthesia between the Articaine and Lidocaine solutions.

Conclusions: 4 % Articaine offers better clinical performance than 2 % Lidocaine, particularly in terms of latency and duration of the anesthetic effect. However, no statistically significant differences in anesthetic efficacy were recorded between the two solutions.

Citing Articles

Efficacy of Articaine versus Lignocaine as Local Anesthetic Agents Using Buccal Infiltration Technique for Extraction of Mandibular Premolars.

Kolte D, Kalsi H, Kharkar V, Patil T, Kumar B, Wagh A J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2025; 16(Suppl 4):S3898-S3900.

PMID: 39926784 PMC: 11805106. DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1330_24.

Comparison of the effects of lidocaine and articaine used for buccal infiltration and supplemental palatinal infiltration anesthesia in maxillary molars with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized study.

Kolay D, Kirici D BMC Oral Health. 2025; 25(1):207.

PMID: 39923048 PMC: 11807300. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-025-05552-y.

A Comparative Evaluation of Pain Experience and Time of Onset of 2% Lignocaine and 4% Articaine in Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block among Pediatric Population: A Clinical Study.

Singh S, Koul M Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2024; 17(1):67-71.

PMID: 38559865 PMC: 10978513. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2748.

Why choose articaine over lidocaine for the removal of third molars? Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Nogueira E, Almeida R, de Souza B, Aguiar P, Vasconcellos R J Clin Exp Dent. 2023; 15(11):e963-e977.

PMID: 38074170 PMC: 10699756. DOI: 10.4317/jced.60682.

A Split-Mouth Clinical Comparative Evaluation of the Anesthetic Efficacy of Articaine and Lignocaine for Maxillary Bicuspids Extraction.

Jaiswal P, Goyal R, Dubey C, Akhter J, Ramalingam K, Kalita S Cureus. 2023; 15(6):e40167.

PMID: 37431340 PMC: 10329780. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.40167.

References

Hintze A, Paessler L . Comparative investigations on the efficacy of articaine 4% (epinephrine 1:200,000) and articaine 2% (epinephrine 1:200,000) in local infiltration anaesthesia in dentistry--a randomised double-blind study. Clin Oral Investig. 2006; 10(2):145-50. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-005-0025-0. View

Brkovic B, Gardasevic M, Roganovic J, Jovic N, Todorovic L, Stojic D . Lidocaine+clonidine for maxillary infiltration anaesthesia: parameters of anaesthesia and vascular effects. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007; 37(2):149-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2007.07.019. View

Magliocca K, Kessel N, Cortright G . Transient diplopia following maxillary local anesthetic injection. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006; 101(6):730-3. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.08.012. View

Hersh E, Giannakopoulos H, Levin L, Secreto S, Moore P, Peterson C . The pharmacokinetics and cardiovascular effects of high-dose articaine with 1:100,000 and 1:200,000 epinephrine. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006; 137(11):1562-71. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0092. View

Finder R, Moore P . Adverse drug reactions to local anesthesia. Dent Clin North Am. 2002; 46(4):747-57, x. DOI: 10.1016/s0011-8532(02)00018-6. View

Porto G, Vasconcelos B, Gomes A, Albert D . Evaluation of lidocaine and mepivacaine for inferior third molar surgery. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2007; 12(1):E60-4. View

Colombini B, Modena K, Calvo A, Sakai V, Giglio F, Dionisio T . Articaine and mepivacaine efficacy in postoperative analgesia for lower third molar removal: a double-blind, randomized, crossover study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006; 102(2):169-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.09.003. View

Brunetto P, Ranali J, Ambrosano G, de Oliveira P, Groppo F, Meechan J . Anesthetic efficacy of 3 volumes of lidocaine with epinephrine in maxillary infiltration anesthesia. Anesth Prog. 2008; 55(2):29-34. PMC: 2424013. DOI: 10.2344/0003-3006(2008)55[29:AEOVOL]2.0.CO;2. View

Moore P, Doll B, Delie R, Hersh E, Korostoff J, Johnson S . Hemostatic and anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine HCl with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine when administered intraorally for periodontal surgery. J Periodontol. 2007; 78(2):247-53. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2007.060314. View

10.

Moore P, Boynes S, Hersh E, DeRossi S, Sollecito T, Goodson J . The anesthetic efficacy of 4 percent articaine 1:200,000 epinephrine: two controlled clinical trials. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006; 137(11):1572-81. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0093. View

11.

Santos C, Modena K, Giglio F, Sakai V, Calvo A, Colombini B . Epinephrine concentration (1:100,000 or 1:200,000) does not affect the clinical efficacy of 4% articaine for lower third molar removal: a double-blind, randomized, crossover study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007; 65(12):2445-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2007.04.020. View

12.

Wright G, Weinberger S, Friedman C, Plotzke O . Use of articaine local anesthesia in children under 4 years of age--a retrospective report. Anesth Prog. 1989; 36(6):268-71. PMC: 2163977. View

13.

Baluga J, Casamayou R, Carozzi E, Lopez N, Anale R, Borges R . Allergy to local anaesthetics in dentistry. Myth or reality?. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr). 2002; 30(1):14-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0301-0546(02)79081-2. View

14.

Robertson D, Nusstein J, Reader A, Beck M, McCartney M . The anesthetic efficacy of articaine in buccal infiltration of mandibular posterior teeth. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007; 138(8):1104-12. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0324. View

15.

Gregorio L, Giglio F, Sakai V, Modena K, Colombini B, Calvo A . A comparison of the clinical anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 0.5% bupivacaine (both with 1:200,000 epinephrine) for lower third molar removal. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008; 106(1):19-28. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.11.024. View

16.

Nusstein J, Berlin J, Reader A, Beck M, Weaver J . Comparison of injection pain, heart rate increase, and postinjection pain of articaine and lidocaine in a primary intraligamentary injection administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system. Anesth Prog. 2005; 51(4):126-33. PMC: 2007494. View

17.

Brandt R, Anderson P, McDonald N, Sohn W, Peters M . The pulpal anesthetic efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine in dentistry: a meta-analysis. J Am Dent Assoc. 2011; 142(5):493-504. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2011.0219. View

18.

Kanaa M, Whitworth J, Corbett I, Meechan J . Articaine and lidocaine mandibular buccal infiltration anesthesia: a prospective randomized double-blind cross-over study. J Endod. 2006; 32(4):296-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2005.09.016. View

19.

Calatayud J, Gonzalez A . History of the development and evolution of local anesthesia since the coca leaf. Anesthesiology. 2003; 98(6):1503-8. DOI: 10.1097/00000542-200306000-00031. View

20.

Gracely R . Measuring pain in the clinic. Anesth Prog. 1990; 37(2-3):88-92. PMC: 2190317. View