These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Clinical efficacy of lidocaine, mepivacaine, and articaine for local infiltration.
    Author: Srisurang S, Narit L, Prisana P.
    Journal: J Investig Clin Dent; 2011 Feb; 2(1):23-8. PubMed ID: 25427324.
    Abstract:
    AIM:   To assess and compare the efficacy of single buccal and palatal infiltration of lidocaine, mepivacaine, or articaine with 1:100 000 epinephrine by maxillary anesthetic injection. METHODS:   A double-blinded, randomized, clinical trial was conducted with 33 patients undergoing upper premolar extraction. The patients were randomly allocated into one of three groups, according to the local anesthetic agent used: 2% lidocaine, 2% mepivacaine, or 4% articaine, all with 1:100 000 epinephrine, and were blinded to the anesthetic used. The extent of anesthetization, pulpal anesthetization in adjacent teeth, pain on injection, and adverse effects of the anesthetic agents were assessed. RESULTS:   The extent of anesthetization produced by 4% articaine (42 mm) was statistically more significant (P ≤ 0.05) than 2% lidocaine (33 mm) and 2% mepivacaine (32.5 mm). The successful anesthetization of adjacent teeth occurred more often in the articaine group than in the lidocaine and mepivacine groups, although not to a statistically-significant extent. The pain scores for the injections were comparable between the three groups. CONCLUSIONS:   Local anesthetization using 4% articaine with 1:100 000 epinephrine covers a wider area of soft tissue and adjacent teeth than 2% lidocaine or 2% mepivacaine with 1:100 000 epinephrine, which is sufficient for the extraction of one or two teeth.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]