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
. 2024 Dec;16(Suppl 4):S3898-S3900.
doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1330_24. Epub 2024 Dec 10.

Efficacy of Articaine versus Lignocaine as Local Anesthetic Agents Using Buccal Infiltration Technique for Extraction of Mandibular Premolars

Deepak Kolte  1 , Harjit Singh Kalsi  1 , Viraj Rajeev Kharkar  1 , Tejal Patil  1 , Barun Kumar  1 , Ashvin Wagh  1 , Sanpreet Singh Sachdev  2
Affiliations

Efficacy of Articaine versus Lignocaine as Local Anesthetic Agents Using Buccal Infiltration Technique for Extraction of Mandibular Premolars

Deepak Kolte et al. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2024 Dec.

Abstract

Introduction: Lignocaine, commonly used for local anesthesia, often results in discomfort during mandibular premolar extractions due to limited tissue diffusion with the buccal infiltration technique. Articaine, with better lipid solubility, promises improved diffusion and patient comfort. This study compares the efficacy of 2% Lignocaine and 4% Articaine in reducing pain during mandibular premolar extractions.

Methodology: A split-mouth, randomized, controlled trial included 40 patients, aged between 18 and 40 years, undergoing bilateral mandibular premolar extractions. Each patient received 4% Articaine with adrenaline and 2% Lignocaine with adrenaline on opposite sides at separate appointments. Pain was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Faces Pain Scale (FPS).

Results: Patients in the Articaine group reported significantly lower pain levels (mean FPS: 0.2) compared to the Lignocaine group (mean FPS: 3.6) (P < 0.001). In the Articaine group, 34 out of 40 patients experienced no pain, whereas all patients in the Lignocaine group reported mild to severe pain. Mild pain was reported by 23 patients in the Lignocaine group, and moderate pain by 12 (P < 0.05). No severe pain was recorded in the Articaine group.

Conclusion: Articaine demonstrated superior pain control, making it a more effective choice over Lignocaine for mandibular premolar extractions using the buccal infiltration technique.

Keywords: Articaine; dental extraction; lignocaine; local anesthesia.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Bahar E, Yoon H. Lidocaine: A local anesthetic, its adverse effects and management. Medicina (Kaunas) 2021;57:782. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Decloux D, Ouanounou A. Local anaesthesia in dentistry: A review. Int Dent J. 2020;71:87–95. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kambalimath DH, Dolas RS, Kambalimath HS, Agrawal SM. Efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine: A clinical study. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2013;12:3–8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chandrasekaran D, Chinnaswami R, Shanthi K, Dhiravia Sargunam AE, Kumar KS, et al. Aprospective study to assess the efficacy of 4% Articaine, 0.5% Bupivacaine, and 2% Lignocaine using a single buccal supraperiosteal injection for maxillary tooth extraction. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2021;13(Suppl 1):S721–4. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Deshpande N, Jadhav A, Bhola N, Gupta M. Anesthetic efficacy and safety of 2% lidocaine hydrochloride with 1:100,000 adrenaline and 4% articaine hydrochloride with 1:100,000 adrenaline as a single buccal injection in the extraction of maxillary premolars for orthodontic purposes. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2020;20:233–40. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources