Efficacy of 2% Lignocaine and 4% Articaine in Oral Surgical Procedure: A Comparative Study.

ABSTRACT

AIM AND OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of 2% lignocaine and 4% articaine in the extraction of mandibular molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was conducted on 120 patients requiring surgical removal of tooth. Patients were categorized into 2 groups with 60 samples each. Group I patients were administered 2% lignocaine with 150,000 epinephrine and group II patients were administered 4% articaine with 1100,000 epinephrine for the extraction of mandibular molar. Inferior alveolar nerve, lingual, and buccal nerve block used in both groups to anesthetize the area. RESULTS: The mean onset of action in group I was 85.2 seconds and in group II was 52.6 seconds, duration of anesthesia in group I was 170.2 minutes and in group II was 226.8 minutes, duration of procedure was 30.4 minutes in group I and 32.6 minutes in group II, pain during procedure in group I was 2.75 and in group II was 1.42, pain after procedure was 1.41 in group I and 0.82 in group II, pain during anesthesia insertion was 1.52 in group I and 1.04 in group II. Forty-six (76.7%) patients in group I and 52 (86.7%) patients in group II did not require re-anesthesia, while 12 (20%) in group I and 8 (13.3%) in group II required 1 time re-anesthesia and 2 (3.3%) patients required 2 times re-anesthesia in group I. CONCLUSION: Articaine can be effectively used in oral surgical procedures as there is early onset of action, longer duration of anesthesia, and less need of re-anesthesia. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Articaine is more effective compared to lignocaine, hence it can be recommended alternatively for tooth extraction and other oral surgical procedures.