Does articaine, rather than prilocaine, increase the success rate of anaesthesia for extraction of maxillary teeth

Giath Gazal, Giath Gazal

Abstract

Objective: To compare the anesthetic performances of 3% prilocaine and 4% articaine when used for the extraction of the maxillary teeth.

Materials and methods: Ninety-five patients, aged between 16 and 70 years, were included in this study. Patients were divided into two groups. Group one received articaine 4% with 1:00.000 adrenaline. Group two received prilocaine with 3% felypressin (0.03 I.U. per ml). Onset time of anesthesia was objectively evaluated by using electronic pulp testing.

Results: Eighty-five patients in this study had a successful local anesthetic followed by extraction within the study duration time (10 minutes). However, there were six patients with failure anesthesia (5 in prilocaine group and 1 in articaine group). By applying Person's Chi-square test (x2), there were no significant differences in the number of episodes of the anesthetic success between articaine and prilocaine groups at time intervals (P = 0.5). T-test showed that there have been no important variations within the mean onset time of anesthesia for articaine and prilocaine buccal infiltrations (P = 0.1).

Conclusions: 3% Prilocaine with felypressin is as effective as 4% articaine with adrenaline when used for the extraction of maxillary teeth. Recommendations would be given to the dental practitioners to use prilocaine more frequently than articaine because of its low toxicity.

Trial registration number: NCT04236115.

Keywords: Carticaine; dental extraction; injections; prilocaine.

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Copyright: © 2020 Saudi Journal of Anesthesia.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Representing the number of patients who achieved anaesthetic successes at time interval for both prilocaine and articaine groups

References

    1. St George G, Morgan A, Meechan J, Moles DR, Needleman I, Ng YL, et al. Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;7:CD006487.
    1. Gheisari R, Resalati F, Mahmoudi S, Golkari A, Mosaddad SA. Do different modes of delivering postoperative instructions to patients help reduce the side effects of tooth extraction? A randomized clinical trial. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76:1652. e1-e7.
    1. Alzahrani F, Duggal MS, Munyombwe T, Tahmassebi JF. Anaesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine for extraction and pulpotomy of mandibular primary molars: An equivalence parallel prospective randomized controlled trial. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2018;28:335–44.
    1. Gazal G, Alharbi R, Fareed WM, Omar E, Alolayan AB, Al-Zoubi H, et al. Comparison of onset anesthesia time and injection discomfort of 4% articaine and 2% mepivacaine during teeth extractions. Saudi J Anaesth. 2017;11:152–7.
    1. Gazal G, Fareed WM, Zafar MS. Role of intraseptal anaesthesia for pain-free dental treatment. Saudi J Anaesth. 2016;10:81–6.
    1. Gazal G, Alharbi AM, Al-Samadani KH, Kanaa MD. Articaine and mepivacaine buccal infiltration in securing mandibular first molar pulp anesthesia following mepivacaine inferior alveolar nerve block: A randomized, double-blind crossover study. Saudi J Anaesth. 2015;9:397–403.
    1. Li J, Wei W, Yang W, Li J, Gao Y, Qian Y. Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety between articaine and lidocaine in the anaesthesia management of tooth pulp disease. Pak J Pharm Sci. 2018;31:2303–6.
    1. Shahi S, Rahimi S, Yavari HR, Ghasemi N, Ahmadi F. Success rate of 3 injection methods with articaine for mandibular first molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: A CONSORT randomized double-blind. Clinical Trial J Endod. 2018;44:1462–6.
    1. Karm MH, Kim M, Park FD, Seo KS, Kim HJ. Comparative evaluation of the efficacy, safety, and hemostatic effect of 2% lidocaine with various concentrations of epinephrine. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2018;18:143–9.
    1. Mishra A, Lalani Z, Kalakonda B, Krishnan P, Pandey R, Reddy K. Comparative evaluation of hemodynamic, vasoconstrictive, and SpO2 variability during different stages of periodontal surgery performed using 0.5% ropivacaine or 2% lignocaine HCl (1:80,000 adrenaline) local anesthesia: A randomized, double-blind, split-mouth pilot study. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2018;22:243–8.
    1. Nydegger B, Nusstein J, Reader A, Drum M, Beck M. Anaesthetic comparisons of 4% concentrations of articaine, lidocaine, and prilocaine as primary buccal infiltrations of the mandibular first molar: A prospective randomized, double-blind study. J Endod. 2014;40:1912–6.
    1. Katz S, Drum M, Reader A, Nusstein J, Beck M. A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of 2% lidocaine with 1: 100,000 epinephrine, 4% prilocaine with 1: 200,000 epinephrine, and 4% prilocaine for maxillary infiltrations. Anesth Prog. 2010;57:45–51.
    1. Pool SM, Struys MM, van der Lei B. A randomised double-blinded crossover study comparing pain during anaesthetising the eyelids in upper blepharoplasty: First versus second eyelid and lidocaine versus prilocaine. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015;68:1242–7.
    1. Shinzaki H, Sunada K. Advantages of anterior inferior alveolar nerve block with felypressin-propitocaine over conventional epinephrine-lidocaine: An efficacy and safety study. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2015;15:63–8.
    1. Haas DA, Harper DG, Saso MA, Young ER. Comparison of articaine and prilocaine anesthesia by infiltration in maxillary and mandibular arches. Anesth Prog. 1990;37:230–7.
    1. Oliver G, David DA, Bell C, Robb N. An investigation into dental local anaesthesia teaching in United Kingdom dental schools. SAAD Dig. 2016;32:7–13.
    1. Hashemi SH, Ladez SR, Moghadam SA. Comparative assessment of the effects of three local anaesthetics: Lidocaine, prilocaine, and mepivacaine on blood pressure changes in patients with controlled hypertension. Glob J Health Sci. 2016;8:54157.
    1. Gazal G. Is articaine more potent than mepivacaine for use in oral surgery? J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2018;9:e5.
    1. Gazal G. Is prilocaine safe and potent enough for use in the oral surgery of medically compromised patients. Saudi Med J. 2019;40:97–100.
    1. Alsharif A, Omar E, Alolayan AB, Bahabri R, Gazal G. 2% lidocaine versus 3% prilocaine for oral and maxillofacial surgery. Saudi J Anaesth. 2018;12:571–7.
    1. Byakodi S, Gurjar V, Soni S. Glucose levels and hemodynamic changes in patients submitted to routine dental extraction under local anesthesia with and without adrenaline. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2017;18:57–9.
    1. Torres-Lagares D, Serrera-Figallo MÁ, Machuca-Portillo G, Corcuera-Flores JR, Machuca-Portillo C, Castillo-Oyagüe R, et al. Cardiovascular effect of dental anesthesia with articaine (40 mg with epinefrine 0,5 mg% and 40 mg with epinefrine 1 mg%) versus mepivacaine (30 mg and 20 mg with epinefrine 1 mg%) in medically compromised cardiac patients: A cross-over, randomized, single blinded study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012;17:e655–60.
    1. Bonar T, Nusstein J, Reader A, Drum M, Fowler S, Beck M. Anaesthetic efficacy of articaine and lidocaine in a primary intraseptal injection: A prospective, randomized double-blind study. Anesth Prog. 2017;64:203–11.
    1. Ghadimi S, Shahrabi M, Khosravi Z, Behroozi R. Efficacy of articaine infiltration versus lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block for pulpotomy in mandibular primary second molars: A randomized clinical trial. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2018;12:97–101.
    1. Rayati F, Noruziha A, Jabbarian R. Efficacy of buccal infiltration anaesthesia with articaine for extraction of mandibular molars: A clinical trial. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;56:607–10.
    1. Sawadogo A, Coulibaly M, Quilodran C, Bationo R, Konsem T, Ella B. Success rate of first attempt 4% articaine para-apical anesthesia for the extraction of mandibular wisdom teeth. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;119:486–8.
    1. Moore PA. Innovations in local anesthesia are easing the pain of dentistry. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2018;39:256–7.
    1. Gazal G. Overcoming the failure of anesthesia in the mandibular teeth. Saudi Med J. 2019;40:425.
    1. Gazal G, Omar E, Fareed WM, Alsharif A, Bahabri R. Impact of maxillary teeth morphology on the failure rate of local anesthesia. Saudi J Anaesth. 2020;14:57–62.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel