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.
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
