Comparison of Efficacy of Lidocaine and Articaine as Inferior Alveolar Nerve Blocking Agents in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background and Objectives: Lidocaine Hydrochloride has been the standard choice for local anesthesia in dentistry and Articaine's unique structure and growing popularity make it a viable alternative. Due to contradictory results in prior research and a scarcity of trials conducted in the Pakistani population, this study aims to compare the anesthetic efficacy of Lidocaine with Articaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Materials and Methods: This double-blinded, randomized controlled trial included 152 patients who were selected by consecutive non-probability sampling. The participants included patients who presented with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth (molars and premolars) and depicted normal apical tissue radiographically. The patients were equally and randomly divided into two groups. The control group received 2% Lidocaine Hydrochloride injections, and the experiment group received 4% Articaine Hydrochloride injections. Participants scored their pain on the HP-VAS both before and after the administration of anesthesia. A value of 54 mm or less on the scale indicated effective anesthesia. The data obtained were analyzed using SPSS. Chi-square test was applied to analyze data for statistical significance. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the efficacy of the two anesthetic agents. During access cavity preparation, Lidocaine demonstrated a success rate of 93%, whereas Articaine exhibited a slightly higher success rate of 97%. During initial instrumentation, the success rates for Lidocaine and Articaine were 72% and 71%, respectively. This suggests that both Lidocaine and Articaine were effective in achieving anesthesia during the dental procedure in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, with Articaine showing a slightly better success rate, although the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions: The anesthetic efficacy of Articaine is similar to that of lidocaine in subjects with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Hence, Articaine can serve as an alternative to Lidocaine for local anesthesia administration in dentistry.

Success of Pulpal Anesthesia Following Buccal Infiltration of the Maxillary First Molar With 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of 4% Articaine With 1:100,000 Epinephrine: A Prospective, Randomized Crossover Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective, randomized crossover study was to compare the peak incidence of success, onset, and incidence over time of pulpal anesthesia in maxillary first molars following a buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL or 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100 000 epinephrine. METHODS: A total of 118 adults received 1.8 mL or 3.6 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100 000 epinephrine via buccal infiltration of the maxillary first molar at 2 separate appointments. Electric pulp testing (EPT) of the maxillary first molar was performed over 68 minutes. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the peak incidence of anesthetic success (85% and 92%, respectively) in the maxillary first molar between 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL. The difference in onset times (4.5 min for 1.8 mL vs 4.4 min for 3.6 mL) was not statistically significant. However, the 3.6-mL volume did produce a significantly higher incidence of pulpal anesthesia from minutes 48 to 68 compared with the 1.8-mL volume. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in peak incidence or onset of pulpal anesthesia in the maxillary first molar between 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of articaine with epinephrine. The incidence of pulpal anesthesia was significantly higher with 3.6 mL of articaine at 48 minutes and beyond, but neither volume provided complete pulpal anesthesia for all subjects that lasted at least 60 minutes.

Comparative study of articaine 4% versus lidocaine 2% in the local anesthesia of permanent mandibular first molars affected by MIH: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The current study compares articaine 4% with lidocaine 2% in terms of injection pain and effectiveness of anesthesia when treating permanent mandibular first molars (PMFMs) affected by molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH). In addition to comparing the complications of local anesthesia for both solutions. METHODS: The sample included 20 children. Each child was randomly assigned to either articaine 4% or lidocaine 2% in their first session with the other solution being used at the subsequent session. Injection pain and the effectiveness of anesthesia were assessed using the Wong-Baker Faces® Pain Rating Scale and the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) scale. Parents were asked to report any complications of local anesthesia. The Wilcoxon-matched pairs signed-rank test was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Patients experienced greater pain when receiving articaine 4% injections according to both scales, differences were statistically significant when using the Wong-Baker Faces® Pain Rating scale (p < 0.05). Whereas, the FLACC scale did not show such differences (P > 0.05). Although there were no significant differences between the two solutions regarding the effectiveness of local anesthesia according to both scales (P > 0.05), articaine 4% was clinically found to be more effective than lidocaine 2%. No complications of local anesthesia were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Articaine 4% injection was more painful than lidocaine 2%. However, both solutions were effective in anesthetizing PMFMs affected by MIH and without anesthetic complications in the studied sample. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial, NCT05200884, ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05200884 ).

Cambios Hemodinámicos Asociados a Exodoncias de Terceros Molares Inferiores con el Uso de Articaína 4 % y/o Lidocaína 2 %: Una revisión sistemática / Hemodynamic Changes Associated with Lower Third Molar Extractions with the Use of Articaine 4 % and/or Lidocaine 2 %: A systematic Review

La exodoncia de los terceros molares inferiores es uno de los procedimientos clínicos más comunes en el cual el control del dolor mediante el bloqueo anestésico del nervio alveolar inferior, bucal y lingual resulta ser fundament al y la manera más común de hacerlo es mediante la infiltración de soluciones de anestesia local. Entre ellos la lidocaína y articaína son algunos de los más comunes y pueden estar asociado a vasoconstrictores como la epinefrina que puede provocar aumento de la presión arterial y frecuencia cardíaca razón por la cual se hace necesario la monitorización de cambios hemodinámicos durante la cirugía. Describir los cambios hemodinámicos asociados al uso de lidocaína al 2 % y/ o articaína al 4 % en la presión sistólica y diastólica, frecuencia cardiaca y saturación parcial de oxígeno en relación a distintos tiempos operatorios. Se realizó una revisión sistemática en las bases de datos de PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science y Sciencedirect. Se analizaron 7 ensayos clínicos controlados en los que utilizaron articaína al 4 % y/o lidocaína al 2 % con epinefrina al 1:100,000 y/o 1:200,000 en volúmenes de 1,8 a 5,4 mL, en los cuales evaluaron la presión sistólica y diastólica, frecuencia cardiaca y saturación parcial de oxígeno en distintos tiempos de la cirugía. Si bien hubo cambios en PAS, PAD, FC y SPO2, todas se mantuvieron dentro de rangos normales bajo el uso de articaína al 4 % y lidocaína al 2 % con epinefrina 1:100,000 y/o 1:200,000 a volúmenes de 1,8 a 5,4mL medidas a distintos tiempos operatorios.

The extraction of lower third molars is one of the most common clinical procedures in which pain control through anesthetic blockade of the lower alveolar, buccal and lingual nerves turns out to be essential and the most common way to do it is through the infiltration of solutions of local anesthesia. Among them, lidocaine and articaine are some of the most common and may be associated with vasoconstrictors such as epinephrine, which can cause an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, which is why it is necessary to monitor hemodynamic changes during surgery. To describe the hemodynamic changes associated with the use of 2 % lidocaine and/or 4 % articaine in systolic and diastolic pressure, heart rate and partial oxygen saturation in relation to different operative times. A systematic review was carried out in the PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Sciencedirect databases. Seven controlled clinical trials were analyzed in which 4 % articaine and/or 2 % lidocaine were used with epinephrine at 1:100,000 and/or 1:200,000 in volumes of 1,8 to 5,4 mL, in which systolic pressure was evaluated. and diastolic, heart rate and partial oxygen saturation at different times of surgery. Although there were changes in SBP, DBP, HR and SPO2, all remained within normal ranges under the use of 4 % articaine and 2 % lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 and/or 1:200,000 at volumes of 1,8 to 5 .4mL measured at different operative times.

Anaesthetic Efficacy of 4% Articaine in Comparison with 2% Lidocaine as Intraligamentary Injections after an Ineffective Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Mandibular Molars with Irreversible Pulpitis: A Prospective Randomised Triple-Blind Clinical Trial.

The objective of the current study was to compare the anaesthetic efficacy of supplemental intraligamentary (IL) injection of 4% articaine with that of 2% lidocaine in the mandibular first and second molars with irreversible pulpitis after an ineffective inferior alveolar nerve block injection (IANB) using the same anaesthetic in a randomised triple-blind clinical trial. Seventy-six adult patients, who were diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis in the mandibular first or second molars, were divided into 2 groups and received IANB randomly. In patients with lip numbness, anaesthesia was evaluated with the cold and electrical pulp (EPT) tests, and if the reported number on EPT was below 100, supplemental IL injection was administered using the same anaesthetic. The teeth were retested after 5 minutes. The Heft-Parker visual analogue scale was used to evaluate pain after IANB and IL injections. Statistical analysis was performed using repeated measures ANOVA, chi-square, and independent-sample and paired-sample t-tests. The results showed that there was no significant difference in the success rates of supplemental IL and IANB injections between articaine and lidocaine. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the success rates of supplemental IL injection with lidocaine between the mandibular first and second molars. However, there was a significant difference in the success rates of supplemental IL injection with articaine between the mandibular first and second molars. Moreover, supplemental IL injections indicated no significant difference in the anaesthetic efficacy between articaine and lidocaine; nevertheless, they were more effective in the mandibular second molars, especially with articaine.

Analgesic and Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Articaine and Perineural Dexamethasone for Mandibular Third Molar Surgery: A Randomized, Double-Blind Study.

PURPOSE: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of articaine and perineural dexamethasone (DX) in reducing postoperative sequelae such as swelling and maximum mouth opening that are harming the quality of life of patients after impacted mandibular third molar (IMTM) surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We implemented a randomized clinical trial composed of patients undergoing IMTM extraction. The predictor variable was the treatment group. The patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: Group A was administered 3.6 mL of articaine mixed with 2 mL of saline solution; group B, 3.6 mL of articaine and 1 mL of DX (4-mg/mL solution) with 1 mL of saline solution; and group C, 3.6 mL of articaine with 2 mL of DX (8-mg/mL solution). The primary outcome variables were swelling (determined by anatomic facial landmarks), pain, and maximum mouth opening. Other variables comprised the duration of surgery, number of analgesics taken in the postoperative period, hygiene, and petechiae. RESULTS: The sample was composed of 60 patients (20 per treatment group), with a mean age of 25.18 ± 5.22 years; 53.3% were women. Postoperative swelling was significantly reduced in groups B and C (P < .05). Maximum mouth opening was significantly increased in groups B and C (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that combining DX with articaine improves the management of discomfort after IMTM surgery. The use of articaine via a mandibular block was not associated with neural damage in our study.

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

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.

Effectiveness of 2% Articaine as an anesthetic agent in children: randomized controlled trial.

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 2% articaine and 2% lignocaine in achieving adequate anesthesia in children between the age group of 6-13 years using inferior alveolar nerve block. METHODS: A triple blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted in 180 participants (90 patients- 2% articaine, 90 patients-2% lignocaine). Effectiveness of the anesthetic agent was determined at 3 points determined by subjective evaluation of pain using pain scales (FPS-R). Paired sample t-test and chi square test were performed for statistical significance. RESULT: Anesthetic success for 2% articaine were 64.4%, 42.2% and 81.8% respectively. The anesthetic success of 2% lignocaine was 66.7%, 48.9% and 85.7% at point one, point two and point three respectively (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study concludes that 2% articaine in 1:2,00,000 did not demonstrate superior clinical effectiveness in comparison to 2% lignocaine. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Lignocaine has always been considered the gold standard. With its unique chemical structure and increased potency, Articaine has been gaining popularity. Its efficacy in 2% concentration had not been compared to 2% lignocaine. 2% articaine did not show clinical superiority but its comparable effectiveness with lignocaine can encourage further research in using articaine in reduced concentrations to improve effectiveness.

Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety between articaine and lidocaine in the anaesthesia management of tooth pulp disease.

To evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy and safety between articaine and lidocaine in the anaesthesia management of tooth pulp disease. The 160 patients with tooth pulp disease treated at our hospital were enrolled. After informed consent was obtained, patients were randomly assigned to study group and control group, with 80 patients in each group. Of those, lidocaine was administered to the control group while articaine was given to the study group. The onset time, analgesic effect and adverse events were recorded. Compared with control group, the onset time was significantly reduced in study group (p<0.05). Patients treated with articaine had better analgesic effect than patients in control group (p<0.05). And the incidence of adverse events was notably lower in study group (p<0.05). Compared with lidocaine, articaine presents higher analgesic efficacy and safety for patients with tooth pulp disease.

Anaesthetic efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine in children's dentistry: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Over the last few years, numerous reviews and studies have awarded articaine hydrochloride local anaesthetic (LA) a superior reputation, with outcomes of different studies demonstrating a general tendency for articaine hydrochloride to outperform lidocaine hydrochloride for dental treatment. Nevertheless, there seems to be no clear agreement on which LA solution is more efficacious in dental treatment for children. There is no previous publication systematically reviewing and summarising the current best evidence with respect to the success rates of LA solutions in children. AIMS: To evaluate the available evidence on the efficacy of lidocaine and articaine, used in paediatric dentistry. DESIGN: A systematic search was conducted on Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (OVID; 1950 to June 2017), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCOhost; 1982 to June 2017), EMBASE (OVID; 1980 to June 2017), SCI-EXPANDED (ISI Web of Knowledge; 1900 to June 2017), key journals, and previous review bibliographies through June 2017. Original research studies that compared articaine with lidocaine for dental treatment in children were included. Methodological quality assessment and assessment of risk of bias were carried out for each of the included studies. RESULTS: Electronic searching identified 525 publications. Following the primary and secondary assessment process, six randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included in the final analysis. There was no difference between patient self-reported pain between articaine and lidocaine during treatment procedures (SMD = 0.06, P-value = 0.614), and no difference in the occurrence of adverse events between articaine and lidocaine injections following treatment in paediatric patients (RR = 1.10, P-value = 0.863). Yet, patients reported significantly less pain post-procedure following articaine injections (SMD = 0.37, P-value = 0.013). Substantial heterogeneity was noted in the reporting of outcomes among studies, with the overall quality of majority of studies being at high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: There is low quality evidence suggesting that both articaine as infiltration and lidocaine IAD nerve blocks presented the same efficacy when used for routine dental treatments, with no difference between patient self-reported pain between articaine and lidocaine during treatment procedures. Yet, significantly less pain post-procedure was reported following articaine injections. There was no difference in the occurrence of adverse events between articaine and lidocaine injections following treatment in paediatric patients.

Comparison of Visual Analog Scale Scores in Pain Assessment during Pulpotomy using Different Injection Materials in Children Aged 6 to 8 and 8 to 10 Years.

AIM: Proper anesthesia and pain management during treatment are most important concerns in dentistry for people of all ages, especially children. This study compared the success rate of lidocaine block with articaine buccal infiltration during anesthesia of the primary mandibular second molars in children aged 6 to 8 and 8 to 10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present clinical trial was conducted on 40 children aged 6 to 8 and 8 to 10 years who were referred to the Department of Pediatrics of the Faculty of Dentistry at Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences in Yazd (Islamic Republic of Iran) and needed to be treated with pulpotomy on both primary mandibular second molars. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. At the first session, a group received articaine buccal infiltration and the other group experienced inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block. At the next visit, this trend was reversed. Visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the pain during pulpotomy. RESULTS: Data were analyzed by Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (version 17) software using Mann-Whitney test. According to the results of this test, the pain during pulpotomy was significantly lower in the articaine group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Articaine buccal infiltration can be employed for pulpotomy treatment in primary mandibular second molars. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This research will eliminate block injection of lidocaine in children and utilize infiltration of articaine for pulpotomy treatment of mandibular teeth, hence preventing lingual nerve damage and prolonging paresthesia of IAN, lip, and cheek bite due to IAN block anesthesia.

Hemodynamic Behavior in Third Molar Surgeries Using Lidocaine or Articaine / Comportamiento Hemodinámico en Cirugías de los Terceros Molares Utilizando Lidocaína vs Articaina

SUMMARY: The aim of this research was to assess the hemodynamic variations during the extraction of impacted lower third molars using lidocaine 2 % or articaine 4 %, as local anesthetics. Fourteen patients with a mean age of 22.4 (SD=3.25), were submitted to the bilateral extraction of lower third molars, with an interval of three to four weeks between the two extractions. Systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, heart rate and oxygen saturation in the blood were assessed at seven specific time points: baseline; anesthetic puncture; two minutes after anesthesia; osteotomy; suture and five minutes after the procedure had been completed. The statistical analysis involved descriptive analysis, the Shapiro-Wilk test, the Mann-Whitney test, the t-test and the repeated measurements test. No significant differences were found for any of the hemodynamic behavior variables when comparing lidocaine 2 % and articaine 4 %. Significant differences were found between the time points assessed within each group, particularly in relation to the variable heart rate. In the articaine group, systolic blood pressure exhibited a significant decrease five minutes after the procedure. There were no significant variations in hemodynamic behavior between the two different anesthetic groups (articaine 4 % and lidocaine 2 %).

RESUMEN: El objetivo de esta investigación fue evaluar las variaciones hemodinámicas durante la extracción de terceros molares inferiores impactados utilizando lidocaína al 2 % o articaína al 4 %, como anestésicos locales. Catorce pacientes con una edad promedio de 22,4 (SD = 3,25), fueron sometidos a la extracción bilateral de terceros molares inferiores, con un intervalo de tres a cuatro semanas entre las dos extracciones. Se evaluaron la presión arterial sistólica, la presión arterial diastólica, la presión arterial media, la frecuencia cardíaca y la saturación de oxígeno en la sangre, en siete momentos específicos: línea base; punción anestésica; dos minutos después de la anestesia; osteotomía; sutura y cinco minutos después de que el procedimiento fue completado. El análisis estadístico involucró el análisis descriptivo, la prueba de Shapiro-Wilk, la prueba de Mann-Whitney, la prueba t y la prueba de mediciones repetidas. No se encontraron diferencias significativas para ninguna de las variables de comportamiento hemodinámico al comparar lidocaína 2 % y articaína 4 %. Se encontraron diferencias significativas entre los puntos de tiempo evaluados dentro de cada grupo, particularmente en relación con la frecuencia cardíaca variable. En el grupo de articaína, la presión arterial sistólica exhibió una disminución significativa cinco minutos después del procedimiento. No se observaron variaciones significativas en el comportamiento hemodinámico entre los dos grupos anestésicos diferentes (articaína 4 % y lidocaína 2 %).

Anaesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine compared with 2% mepivacaine: a randomized, double-blind, crossover clinical trial.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of 4% articaine (Ar4) compared to 2% mepivacaine (Me2), both in combination with 1:100,000 epinephrine, in a unique soft tissue model. This was a randomized, double-blind, crossover clinical trial. The anaesthetic was applied to the lower lip using a computerized local delivery system. The following were evaluated: blood flow, thermal sensation, pressure and proprioception, extent of anaesthesia, gradual elimination, and the final duration of the effect of the anaesthesia. Seventy-two volunteers completed all parts of the study. Significant differences, which indicated better effectiveness of Me2 compared to Ar4, were observed in the following tests: reduction in blood flow (larger in the Me2 group); anaesthetized area at 30min (larger in the Me2 group); pressure tests; temperature tests after 20min; fine and discriminatory proprioception tests after 20min. The volunteers' perception of anaesthesia at 30, 40, 50, and 60min was superior for Me2 at all recorded time points. The duration of anaesthesia was also superior for Me2. The overall performance of Me2 was superior to Ar4, implying that Me2 provides a more effective anaesthesia in terms of depth, extent, and duration.

The Anesthetic Efficacy of Articaine and Lidocaine in Equivalent Doses as Buccal and Non-Palatal Infiltration for Maxillary Molar Extraction: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the anesthetic adequacy of 4% articaine 1.8 mL versus 2% lidocaine 3.6 mL without palatal injection compared with the standard technique for the extraction of maxillary molar teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial included patients requiring extraction of 1 maxillary molar under local anesthesia. Patients were randomly distributed into 1 of 3 groups: group A received 4% articaine 1.8 mL as a buccal injection and 0.2 mL as a palatal injection, group B received 4% articaine 1.8 mL plus normal saline 0.2 mL as a palatal injection, and group C received 2% lidocaine 3.6 mL plus normal saline 0.2 mL as a palatal injection. Pain was measured during injection, 8 minutes afterward, and during extraction using a visual analog scale. Initial palatal anesthesia and patients' satisfaction were measured using a 5-score verbal rating scale. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, analysis of variance, and Pearson χ2 test. Differences with a P value less than .05 were considered significant. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were included in the study. The average pain of injection was comparable among all study groups (P = .933). Pain during extraction in the articaine group was significantly less than that experienced in the placebo groups (P < .001), although the differences between placebo groups were insignificant. Satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the articaine group compared with the placebo groups (P < .001), with comparable results between placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although the anesthetic effects of single placebo-controlled buccal injections of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine were comparable, the level of anesthetic adequacy was statistically less than that achieved by 4% articaine given by the standard technique. These results do not justify the buccal and non-palatal infiltration of articaine or lidocaine as an effective alternative to the standard technique in the extraction of maxillary molar teeth.

Extraction of Maxillary Teeth Using Articaine Without a Palatal Injection: A Comparison Between the Anterior and Posterior Regions of the Maxilla.

PURPOSE: The injection of a local anesthetic before tooth extraction is always associated with pain, and palatal anesthesia is the most painful type of injection for the patient. The specific aims of the study were to evaluate "pain control" using 4% articaine without palatal injection and to compare adequate anesthesia and pain control in the anterior and posterior regions of the maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective controlled study followed a split-mouth protocol, in which patients served as their own control. Forty-eight patients who needed routine extraction of permanent maxillary anterior and posterior teeth were referred. After an injection of 4% articaine and a 5-minute wait, 1 posterior tooth and 1 anterior tooth were extracted using standard techniques. The patient's perception of pain was assessed using a visual analog scale and a verbal rating scale after each injection and extraction. Statistical analysis consisted of descriptive statistics, paired-sample t test, and independent-samples t test to determine whether differences were statistically significant (P < .05). RESULTS: In total, 48 anterior and 48 posterior teeth were extracted from 48 patients. Extraction of maxillary teeth was possible without an additional palatal injection for 87 teeth (90.6%), whereas only 9 teeth (9.4%) needed an additional palatal injection to complete the extraction. Of the total number of patients, 90% reported that the pain caused by tooth extraction in the anterior and posterior regions of the maxilla was mild. None of the patients rated the pain of extraction in the maxilla as severe. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in pain perception when extracting anterior and posterior teeth. Of the total number of teeth, 90.6% were extracted without the need for palatal injection. In this study, extraction of erupted maxillary teeth using 4% articaine without manipulation of the palatal mucosa obviated palatal infiltration during extraction. Articaine anesthesia provides adequate palatal anesthesia for maxillary teeth extraction in the anterior and posterior regions without the need for a palatal block.

Evaluation of Buccal Infiltration with Articaine and Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block with Lignocaine for Pulp Therapy in Mandibular Primary Molars.

OBJECTIVE: Failure of inferior alveolar nerve block in achieving profound anesthesia of the pulp due to various reasons has led to the introduction of more potent local anesthetic agents like articaine. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of buccal infiltration with articaine in achieving pulpal anesthesia of primary molars as compared to inferior alveolar nerve block with lignocaine. STUDY DESIGN: 30 patients (4-8 years) with indication of pulp therapy in at least two mandibular primary molars were selected. Patients were randomly assigned to receive nerve block with lignocaine or infiltration with articaine on first appointment and the other solution on second appointment. All the pulpotomies and pulpectomies were performed by a pediatric dentist. Two researchers standing at a distance of 1.5 m recorded the Pain Scores and Sound, Eye, Motor (SEM) scores. After the completion of procedure, the patient was asked to record the Facial Image score and Heft-Parker Visual Analogue Score (HP-VAS). RESULTS: Pain Score recorded at the time of injection showed significantly more movements with block as compared to infiltration (p<0.001). SEM scores at time of pulp extirpation were also higher for block than infiltration (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Articaine infiltration has the potential to replace inferior alveolar nerve block for primary mandibular molars.

Effect of vasoconstriction on pain after mandibular third molar surgery: A single-blind, randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Previous research has demonstrated the efficacy of using local compression to reduce postoperative pain after third molar surgery. It has been theorized that compression reduces pain intensity through vasoconstriction. The current research tests the veracity of this vasoconstriction hypothesis by testing the impact of local epinephrine (a local vasoconstrictor) versus a control on patients' pain ratings over 7 days following surgery. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Fifty patients scheduled for mandibular third molar surgery were randomly assigned to receive one cartridge of Ultracaine DS Forte (the treatment group) or one cartridge of Ultracaine DS (the control group) after surgical removal of the third molar. Participants used the visual analog scale (VAS) to provide daily ratings of pain intensity for 7 days following surgery. In addition, on day 7, the perceived effectiveness of the pain treatment was measured with the global perceived effect (GPE) scale. A quality- of-life questionnaire was also completed. RESULTS: A repeated-measures ANOVA indicated that the treatment group perceived significantly less pain than the control group on days 2 to 7 following surgery. In addition, 77.8% of the treatment group perceived their pain treatment to be successful, while only 69.6% of the control group reported that their pain was reduced successfully by day 7. CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide an initial proof of concept that epinephrine may have an analgesic effect on the period following third molar surgery. Further research with larger sample sizes is needed to strengthen evidence for the clinical utility of offering localized epinephrine to patients following third molar surgery.

Efficacy and safety of articaine versus lidocaine for irreversible pulpitis treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

The aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of articaine compared with lidocaine for irreversible pulpitis (IP) treatment. Databases were explored electronically and relevant journals as well as the references of the included studies were hand-searched for randomised clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety of articaine with lidocaine in treatment of IP. Twenty studies were included, of which eight had low risk of bias, 10 had moderate risk of bias and two had high risk of bias. In comparison with 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine showed a higher success rate in anaesthesia of IP at either person (risk ratio (RR) 1.15; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.10 1.20; P < 0.00001) or tooth unit (RR 1.10; 95% CI 1.10 1.19, P < 0.00001), lower VAS scores during injection phase (mean difference (MD) -0.67; 95% CI -1.26 -0.08, P = 0.02) and treatment phase (MD -3.35; 95% CI -3.78 -2.91, P < 0.00001), shorter onset time of pulpal anaesthesia (MD -0.94; 95% CI -1.13 -0.74, P < 0.00001) and lower percentage of patients undergoing adverse events (RR 0.17; 95% CI 0.03 0.92, P = 0.04). Given the efficacy and safety of the two solutions, 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in dental treatments in IP.