» Articles » PMID: 34447191

Anaesthetic Efficacy of Lidocaine and Articaine in Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Combined with Buccal Infiltration in Patients with Irreversible Pulpitis

Overview
Specialty Pharmacology
Date 2021 Aug 27
PMID 34447191
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: This prospective, randomized, double-blinded study was conducted to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) combined with buccal infiltration in patients with irreversible pulpitis.

Methods: Group I: Thirty patients received IANB of 2% lidocaine without buccal infiltration. Group II: Thirty patients received IANB of 2% lidocaine followed by buccal infiltration with 2% lidocaine. Group III: Thirty patients received IANB with 4% articaine followed by buccal infiltration with 4% articaine. Pain during the procedures was recorded by using a Heft Parker visual analog scale. No pain or mild pain on endodontic access was recorded as success and analyzed using Chi-square analysis.

Results: Group I obtained 30% success rate. Fifty percent successful anesthesia was obtained for Group II. The success rate was increased to 70% for Group III with statistically significant difference among all the groups ( < 0.05).

Conclusion: The use of 4% articaine as both IANB and buccal infiltration recorded the highest success rate (70%) when compared to either 2% lidocaine as IANB with buccal infiltration (50%) or 2% lidocaine as IANB alone (30%) in patients with irreversible pulpitis.

Citing Articles

Efficacy of analgesia promoted by lidocaine and articaine in third molar extraction surgery. A split-mouth, randomized, controlled trial.

Santos S, Bonatto M, Mendes P, Martins A, Pereira D, de Oliveira G Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024; 28(2):919-924.

PMID: 38355872 DOI: 10.1007/s10006-024-01223-4.


Articaine versus lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block in posterior mandible implant surgeries: a randomized controlled trial.

Gulnahar Y, Alpan A, Gulnahar E Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2023; 28(2):e108-e115.

PMID: 36806026 PMC: 9985933. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.25475.


Comparative evaluation of effect of different premedication agents on efficacy of Articaine: A randomized contol trial.

Sharma A, Sharma R, Sharma M, Panadan J, Ansari M, Dalai S J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2023; 13(2):218-223.

PMID: 36741857 PMC: 9894783. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2023.01.007.

References
1.
Goldberg S, Reader A, Drum M, Nusstein J, Beck M . Comparison of the anesthetic efficacy of the conventional inferior alveolar, Gow-Gates, and Vazirani-Akinosi techniques. J Endod. 2008; 34(11):1306-1311. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.07.025. View

2.
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

3.
Tortamano I, Siviero M, Costa C, Buscariolo I, Armonia P . A comparison of the anesthetic efficacy of articaine and lidocaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis. J Endod. 2009; 35(2):165-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.10.020. View

4.
WINTHER J, Patirupanusara B . Evaluation of carticaine - a new local analgesic. Int J Oral Surg. 1974; 3(6):422-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-9785(74)80007-4. View

5.
Malamed S, Gagnon S, LeBlanc D . Articaine hydrochloride: a study of the safety of a new amide local anesthetic. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001; 132(2):177-85. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2001.0152. View