Efficacy of analgesia promoted by lidocaine and articaine in third molar extraction surgery. A split-mouth, randomized, controlled trial
- PMID: 38355872
- DOI: 10.1007/s10006-024-01223-4
Efficacy of analgesia promoted by lidocaine and articaine in third molar extraction surgery. A split-mouth, randomized, controlled trial
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of 4% articaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000), and 2% lidocaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000) in third molar extraction surgery.
Methods: Sixty patients who underwent surgeries to extract upper and lower third molars were included in this split-mouth, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. The groups in this study were divided according to the anesthetic solution used to provide local anesthesia during extraction of upper and lower third molars: (1) 4% articaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000); (2) 2% lidocaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000). The time to the beginning and end of the sensation of analgesia, pain sensation according to the VAS scale, and number of anesthetic tubes necessary for supplementation were analyzed.
Results: It was found that the onset time for analgesia was shorter on the side anesthetized with articaine compared to the side anesthetized with lidocaine (122.1 ± 52.90 s vs. 144.5 ± 68.85 s) (p < 0.05). In addition, the number of tubes used for anesthetic supplementation was also reduced on the articaine side compared to the lidocaine side (0.26 ± 0.48 vs. 0.50 ± 0.75) (p < 0.05). There were no differences between the anesthetic solutions in the other evaluated parameters.
Conclusion: It can be concluded that the use of 4% articaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000) reduced the time of onset of analgesia and the necessity for anesthetic supplementation in third molar extraction surgeries compared to the use of 2% lidocaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000).
Keywords: Anesthesia and analgesia; Morbidity; Oral surgical procedures; Third molar.
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Similar articles
-
Comparative Study of the Efficacy of 4% Articaine vs 2% Lidocaine in Surgical Removal of Bilaterally Impacted Mandibular Third Molars.J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018 Jun 1;19(6):743-748. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018. PMID: 29959306 Clinical Trial.
-
Efficacy of articaine and lidocaine in a primary intraligamentary injection administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system.Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005 Mar;99(3):361-6. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.11.009. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005. PMID: 15716846 Clinical Trial.
-
A comparison of the efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine in achieving pulpal anesthesia in maxillary teeth with irreversible pulpitis.J Endod. 2012 Mar;38(3):279-82. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.11.010. Epub 2011 Dec 22. J Endod. 2012. PMID: 22341059 Clinical Trial.
-
Anesthetic Efficiency of Articaine Versus Lidocaine in the Extraction of Lower Third Molars: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019 Jan;77(1):18-28. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2018.08.020. Epub 2018 Sep 5. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019. PMID: 30267700
-
Safety and efficacy of 4% articaine in mandibular third-molar extraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.J Am Dent Assoc. 2020 Dec;151(12):912-923.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2020.08.016. J Am Dent Assoc. 2020. PMID: 33228884
Cited by
-
Application of articaine in endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: a retrospective study.Front Med (Lausanne). 2024 Jul 31;11:1332793. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1332793. eCollection 2024. Front Med (Lausanne). 2024. PMID: 39144653 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Camps-Font O, Figueiredo R, Sánchez-Torres A, Clé-Ovejero A, Coulthard P, Gay-Escoda C, Valmaseda-Castellón E (2020) Which is the most suitable local anaesthetic when inferior nerve blocks are used for impacted mandibular third molar extraction? A network meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 49:1497–1507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2020.04.016 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Alfadil L, Almajed E (2020) Prevalence of impacted third molars and the reason for extraction in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Dent J 32:262–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2020.01.002 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Kaye E, Heaton B, Aljoghaiman EA, Singhal A, Sohn W, Garcia RI (2021) Third-Molar Status and Risk of Loss of Adjacent Second Molars. J Dent Res 100:700–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034521990653 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Ghaeminia H, Hoppenreijs TJ, Xi T, Fennis JP, Maal TJ, Bergé SJ, Meijer GJ (2017) Postoperative socket irrigation with drinking tap water reduces the risk of inflammatory complications following surgical removal of third molars: a multicenter randomized trial. Clin Oral Investig 21:71–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1751-1 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Sawadogo A, Coulibaly M, Quilodran C, Bationo R, Konsem T, Ella B (2018) Success rate of first attempt 4% articaine para-apical anesthesia for the extraction of mandibular wisdom teeth. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 119:486–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2018.06.005 - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources