Anesthetic Efficacy of Buccal Infiltration Articaine versus Lidocaine for Extraction of Primary Molar Teeth

Nilesh V Rathi, Anushree A Khatri, Akshat G Agrawal, Sudhindra Baliga M, Nilima R Thosar, Shravani G Deolia, Nilesh V Rathi, Anushree A Khatri, Akshat G Agrawal, Sudhindra Baliga M, Nilima R Thosar, Shravani G Deolia

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine, both containing epinephrine, using a single buccal infiltration for extraction of primary molars.A total of 100 children requiring primary molar extraction received buccal infiltration using either 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine, both with epinephrine, with 50 children in each group. The Wong-Baker Facial Pain Scale (FPS) was used to evaluate pain perception subjectively. The heart rate and the blood pressure values were assessed objectively as an indirect measure of physiological pain perception. The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used for comparing mean pain scores, heart rate, and blood pressure in both the groups. Single buccal infiltration with articaine was sufficient for achieving palatal or lingual anesthesia in all the children receiving it while all children in the lidocaine group required supplemental anesthesia. The mean FPS value was found to be higher in lidocaine group and was statistically significant. The mean heart rate recorded during the intervention was less than the mean baseline values in the articaine group, which was found to be statistically significant. For pediatric patients age 7 to 12 years, single buccal infiltration with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine is more effective compared to 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine for primarly molar extraction.

Keywords: Articaine; Infiltration anesthesia; Lidocaine; Tooth extraction.

Figures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/6424172/bin/i0003-3006-66-1-3-f01.jpg
Mean pain score in both groups.

References

    1. Mittal M, Sharma S, Kumar A, Chopra R, Srivastava D. Comparison of anesthetic efficacy of articaine and lidocaine during primary maxillary molar extractions in children. Pediatr Dent. 2015;37:520–524.
    1. Kambalimath DH, Dolas RS, Kambalimath HV, Agrawal SM. Efficacy of 4 % articaine and 2 % lidocaine: a clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;12:3–10.
    1. Arrow P. A comparison of articaine 4% and lidocaine 2% in block and infiltration analgesia in children. Aust Dent J. 2012;57:325–333.
    1. Sharaf A. Evaluation of mandibular infiltration versus block anesthesia in pediatric dentistry. ASDC J Dent Child. 1997;64:276–281.
    1. Malamed SF. Suzanne Gagnon S, Leblanc D. A comparison between articaine HCl and lidocaine HCl in paediatric dental patients. Pediatr Dent. 2000;22:307–311.
    1. Snoeck M. Articaine: a review of its use for local and regional anesthesia. Local Reg Anesth. 2012;5:23–33.
    1. Wright GZ, Kupietzky A. Behavior Management in Dentistry for Children 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc;; 2014.
    1. Oberoi J, Panda A, Garg I. Effect of hypnosis during administration of local anesthesia in six- to 16-year-old children. Pediatr Dent. 2016;38:112–115.
    1. Ram D, Amir E. Comparison of articaine 4% and lidocaine 2% in paediatric dental patients. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2006;16:252–256.
    1. Wong DL, Baker CM. Pain in children: comparison of assessment scales. Pediatr Nurs. 1988;14:9–17.
    1. Allen KD, Kati D, Larzelere RE, Hutfless S, Beiraghi S. Comparison of a computerized anesthesia device with a traditional syringe in preschool children. Pediatr Dent. 2002;24:315–320.
    1. Alemany-Martinez A, Valmaseda-Castellon E. Berini-AytesI, Gay-Escoda C. Hemodynamic changes during the surgical removal of lower third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;66:453–461.
    1. Sancho-Puchades M, Vilchez-Perez MA, Valmaseda-Castellon E, Paredes-Garcia J, Berini-Aytes L, Gay-Escoda C. Bupivacaine 0.5% versus articaine 4% for the removal of lower third molars: a crossover randomized controlled trial. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012;17:462–468.
    1. Hassan S. Sripathi Rao BH, Sequeria J, Rai G. Efficacy of 4% articaine hydrochloride and 2% lidocaine in the extraction of maxillary premolars for orthodontic reasons. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2011;1:14–18.
    1. Uckan S, Dayangac E, Araz K. Is permanent maxillary tooth removal without palatal injection possible? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006;102:733–735.
    1. Lima-Junior JL, Dias-Ribeiro E, de Araujo TN, et al. Evaluation of the buccal vestibule- palatal diffusion of 4% articaine hydrochloride in impacted maxillary third molar extractions. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2009;14:29–32.
    1. Fan S, Chen WL, Yang ZH, Huang ZQ. Comparison of the efficiencies of permanent maxillary tooth removal performed with single buccal infiltration versus routine buccal and palatal injection. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;107:359–363.
    1. Silva LC, Santos TD, Santos JA, Maia MC, Mendonca CG. Articaine versus lidocaine for third molar surgery: a randomized clinical study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012;17:140–145.
    1. Malamed SF, Gagnon S, Leblanc D. Articaine hydrochloride: a study of the safety of a new amide local anesthetic. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001;132:177–184.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する