Limits...
A comparative evaluation of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine in mandibular buccal infiltration anesthesia: A clinical study.

Maruthingal S, Mohan D, Maroli RK, Alahmari A, Alqahtani A, Alsadoon M - J Int Soc Prev Community Dent (2015 Nov-Dec)

Bottom Line: Articaine also showed very high significant results subjectively with P = 0.0006 in achieving lip numbness, when compared with lidocaine.But the results in achieving lingual mucosa numbness with articaine subjectively was not significant with P = 0.01, when compared with lidocaine.Further studies are required to use an equal concentration of solutions to achieve more accurate results.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Pariyaram Dental College, Academy of Medical Sciences, Pariyaram, Kerala, India.

ABSTRACT

Background: To compare 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine local anesthetics in achieving pulpal anesthesia of the lower first permanent molar teeth objectively, and to assess and compare lip and lingual mucosa numbness subjectively.

Materials and methods: All subjects received 1.7 ml of any one anesthetic in the mucobuccal fold adjacent to mandibular first molar teeth; the same individuals received the second infiltration at least 1 week after the first. Later, comparisons for pulpal anesthesia, lip and lingual mucosa numbness between these two anesthetics solutions were made.

Results: Articaine showed significant results with P = 0.006 in achieving pulpal anesthesia objectively, when compared with lidocaine. Articaine also showed very high significant results subjectively with P = 0.0006 in achieving lip numbness, when compared with lidocaine. But the results in achieving lingual mucosa numbness with articaine subjectively was not significant with P = 0.01, when compared with lidocaine.

Conclusion: Endodontic and operative treatments are one of the most common oral non-surgical procedures done under local anesthesia. The diversity of anesthetic substances currently available on the market requires dental professionals to assess the drug both by its pharmacokinetic and also by its clinical characteristics during dental treatments. Our study used 4% articaine, which is available in the market, for comparison with 2% lidocaine. Further studies are required to use an equal concentration of solutions to achieve more accurate results.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Mean and SD of lingual mucosa numbness
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4697230&req=5

Figure 3: Mean and SD of lingual mucosa numbness

Mentions: Lingual mucosa numbness was reported by 15 patients after 2% lidocaine and by 24 patients after 4% articaine buccal infiltration. The mean onset of time was 10.53 min for 2% lidocaine and 9.29 min for 4% articaine. This difference was not significant with P = 0.1 [Tables 5 and 6 and Figure 3].


A comparative evaluation of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine in mandibular buccal infiltration anesthesia: A clinical study.

Maruthingal S, Mohan D, Maroli RK, Alahmari A, Alqahtani A, Alsadoon M - J Int Soc Prev Community Dent (2015 Nov-Dec)

Mean and SD of lingual mucosa numbness
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4697230&req=5

Figure 3: Mean and SD of lingual mucosa numbness
Mentions: Lingual mucosa numbness was reported by 15 patients after 2% lidocaine and by 24 patients after 4% articaine buccal infiltration. The mean onset of time was 10.53 min for 2% lidocaine and 9.29 min for 4% articaine. This difference was not significant with P = 0.1 [Tables 5 and 6 and Figure 3].

Bottom Line: Articaine also showed very high significant results subjectively with P = 0.0006 in achieving lip numbness, when compared with lidocaine.But the results in achieving lingual mucosa numbness with articaine subjectively was not significant with P = 0.01, when compared with lidocaine.Further studies are required to use an equal concentration of solutions to achieve more accurate results.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Pariyaram Dental College, Academy of Medical Sciences, Pariyaram, Kerala, India.

ABSTRACT

Background: To compare 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine local anesthetics in achieving pulpal anesthesia of the lower first permanent molar teeth objectively, and to assess and compare lip and lingual mucosa numbness subjectively.

Materials and methods: All subjects received 1.7 ml of any one anesthetic in the mucobuccal fold adjacent to mandibular first molar teeth; the same individuals received the second infiltration at least 1 week after the first. Later, comparisons for pulpal anesthesia, lip and lingual mucosa numbness between these two anesthetics solutions were made.

Results: Articaine showed significant results with P = 0.006 in achieving pulpal anesthesia objectively, when compared with lidocaine. Articaine also showed very high significant results subjectively with P = 0.0006 in achieving lip numbness, when compared with lidocaine. But the results in achieving lingual mucosa numbness with articaine subjectively was not significant with P = 0.01, when compared with lidocaine.

Conclusion: Endodontic and operative treatments are one of the most common oral non-surgical procedures done under local anesthesia. The diversity of anesthetic substances currently available on the market requires dental professionals to assess the drug both by its pharmacokinetic and also by its clinical characteristics during dental treatments. Our study used 4% articaine, which is available in the market, for comparison with 2% lidocaine. Further studies are required to use an equal concentration of solutions to achieve more accurate results.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus