Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2012 Mar 1;17(2):e345-51.
doi: 10.4317/medoral.17414.

Evaluation of the anaesthetic properties and tolerance of 1:100,000 articaine versus 1:100,000 lidocaine. A comparative study in surgery of the lower third molar

N Martínez-Rodríguez  1 , C Barona-Dorado, M Martín-Arés, J Cortés-Bretón-Brinkman, J-M Martínez-González
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Evaluation of the anaesthetic properties and tolerance of 1:100,000 articaine versus 1:100,000 lidocaine. A comparative study in surgery of the lower third molar

N Martínez-Rodríguez et al. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. .

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the anaesthetic properties and tolerance of articaine versus lidocaine at equal vasoconstrictor concentration.

Study design: A total of 96 male and female patients who underwent surgical treatment of the lower third molar participated. Patients were randomly assigned to articaine hydrochloride with epinephrine 1:100,000 and lidocaine hydrochloride with epinephrine 1:100,000. The variables analysed were latency period, duration of anaesthetic effect, tolerance and adverse reactions.

Results: Both the latency period and the duration of anaesthetic effect were greater for articaine, although the differences were not statistically significant. Latency: mean difference of 2.70 ± 2.12 minutes (95%CI of -1.51 minutes - 6.92 minutes).

Duration: mean difference of -33 minutes 5 seconds ± 31 minutes (95% CI -1 hour 35 minutes - 29 minutes). There were 4 adverse events that did not require the patients to be withdrawn from the study.

Conclusions: The anaesthetics in this study have very similar properties for use in surgery and have demonstrated a good safety and tolerability profile.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Latency period for articaine versus lidocaine, expressed in minutes.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Time of anaesthesia duration for articaine versus lidocaine, expressed in minutes.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Paxton K, Thome DE. Efficacy of articaine formulations: quantitative reviews. Dent Clin North Am. 2010;54:643–653. - PubMed
    1. Tortamano IP, Siviero M, Costa CG, Buscariolo IA, Armonia PL. A comparison of the anesthetic efficacy of articaine and lidocaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis. J Endod. 2009;35:165–168. - PubMed
    1. Srinivasan N, Kavitha M, Loganathan CS, Padmini G. Comparison of anaesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine for maxillary buccal infiltration in patients with irreversible pulpitis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;107:133–136. - PubMed
    1. Sherman MG, Flax M, Namerow K, Murray PE. Anesthetic efficacy of the Gow Gates injection and maxillary infiltration with articaine and lidocaine for irreversible pulpitis. J Endod. 2008;34:656–659. - PubMed
    1. Bigby J, Reader A, Nusstein J, Beck M, Weaver J. Articaine for supplemental intraosseous anaesthesia in patients with irreversible pulpitis. J Endod. 2006;32:1044–1047. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources