Volume and effectiveness assessment of articain 4% versus mepivacaine 2% used in third molar surgery: randomized, double-blind, split-mouth controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND: The different indications for extraction of the lower third molars, require resources to manage pain and discomfort, such as, for example, adequate anesthetic techniques, and the type of anesthetic used can influence the management of pain in tooth extractions. Few studies in the literature compare the anesthetics 4% articaine hydrochloride and 2% mepivacaine hydrochloride showing evidence that both allow for successful pain management. This study sought to compare the volume, efficacy and safety of these two anesthetic drugs, both associated with epinephrine at a ratio of 1:100,000, used in the extraction of lower third molars. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A controlled, clinical, split-mouth compared these both local anesthetics in a sample of 20 patients requiring bilateral extraction of teeth. Pain was the main parameter to be assessed by means of the visual analogue scale (VAS) applied during and immediately after the surgery. Hemodynamic parameters, adverse events, presence of paresthesia and satisfaction of patients and surgeon were also analysed. RESULTS: Pain management was more effective with mepivacaine up to two hours after surgery (p = 0.014), whereas the surgeon was more satisfied with the use of articaine during divulsion and suture (p < 0.05). However no statistically significant differences were found between both anesthetics regarding pain perception. CONCLUSIONS: It was observed that both anesthetics are efficient and safe in the management of pain for extraction of third molars, in which less amount of mepivacaine is needed. The satisfaction of patients and surgeon was the same for both anesthetics, with articaine being highlighted during divulsion and suture

No disponible

Avaliação comparativa de articaína 4% versus mepivacaína 2% para cirurgia de terceiros molares: ensaio clínico controlado, randomizado, duplo-cego, de boca dividida / Comparative evaluation of articaine 4% versus mepivacaine 2% for third molar surgery: randomized controlled trial, double-blind, mouth divided

A eficácia do controle da dor em exodontias de terceiros molares está associada ao tipo e concentração do anestésico local. No entanto a taxa de sucesso pode variar de acordo com o anestésico usado, influenciando no controle da dor, nos índices de complicações, entre elas a parestesia, e alterações sistêmicas do paciente. Este estudo clínico controlado em boca dividida, comparou o uso dos anestésicos locais cloridrato de articaína 4% e do cloridrato de mepivacaína 2%, ambos com epinefrina 1:100.000, para a anestesia local em exodontias de terceiros molares inferiores. Vinte pacientes, de ambos os gêneros, com idade média de 21 anos, com terceiros molares inferiores bilaterais em posições semelhantes de acordo com as classificações de Winter e Pell & Gregory, foram submetidos às cirurgias para exodontias, em consultas separadas, com cada um dos lados (direito e esquerdo) randomizados e alocados em dois grupos diferentes, denominados: Grupo 1ART (articaína 4%) e Grupo 2MEP (mepivacaína 2%). Os parâmetros de comparação foram: índice de dor, medida por meio de Escala Visual Analógica (EVA) no trans e pós-operatório imediato; também análise da eficácia anestésica, parâmetros hemodinâmicos, complicações durante e após a cirurgia, dentre os quais se enquadram a ocorrência de parestesia pós-operatória, e a satisfação do paciente e do operador. Não foram encontradas diferenças significativas nos índices de dor na comparação entre os dois anestésicos. O controle da dor foi mais efetivo até 2 horas do pós-operatório imediato e um menor volume de mepivacaína foi necessário para execução do procedimento (p=0,014). A ocorrência de parestesia foi observada com os dois tipos de anestésicos. O uso da articaína e da mepivacaína foi satisfatório para o paciente, e cirurgião, tendo este, o maior grau de satisfação para os momentos de divulsão e sutura (p<0,05), com a articaína(AU)

The efficacy of pain control in third molars is associated with the type and concentration of local anesthetic. However, success rates may vary according to the anesthetic used, influencing pain control, complication rates, including paresthesia and systemic changes of the patient. This split-mouth controlled clinical study compared the use of local anesthetics with 4% articaine hydrochloride and 2% mepivacaine hydrochloride, both with epinephrine 1: 100,000, for local anesthesia in lower molar extractions. Twenty patients of both genders, with an average age of 21 years, with three bilateral inferior inferiors in the limits according to the statistics of Winter and Pell & Gregory, underwent extraction surgeries, in collected consultations, with each one of them. The following sides (right and left) were randomized and allocated into two different groups, namely: Group 1ART (4% articaine) and Group 2MEP (2% mepivacaine). The comparison parameters were: pain index, measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in the trans and immediate postoperative period; also analysis of anesthesia efficacy, hemodynamic parameters, adverse events during and after surgery, which include the occurrence of postoperative paresthesia and patient and operator satisfaction. No significant differences were found in the comparison rates between two anesthetics. Pain control was more effective with in 2 hours of the immediate postoperative period and a smaller volume of mepivacaine was required to perform the procedure (p = 0.014). The occurrence of paresthesia was observed with both types of anesthetics. The use of articaine and mepivacaine was satisfactory for the patient and surgeon, who had a higher degree of satisfaction with the moments of division and suture (p <0.05) with one articaine(AU)