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: The Anesthetic Efficacy of Articaine and Lidocaine in Equivalent Doses as Buccal and Non-Palatal Infiltration for Maxillary Molar Extraction: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.
    Author: Majid OW, Ahmed AM.
    Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2018 Apr; 76(4):737-743. PubMed ID: 29257943.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the anesthetic adequacy of 4% articaine 1.8 mL versus 2% lidocaine 3.6 mL without palatal injection compared with the standard technique for the extraction of maxillary molar teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial included patients requiring extraction of 1 maxillary molar under local anesthesia. Patients were randomly distributed into 1 of 3 groups: group A received 4% articaine 1.8 mL as a buccal injection and 0.2 mL as a palatal injection, group B received 4% articaine 1.8 mL plus normal saline 0.2 mL as a palatal injection, and group C received 2% lidocaine 3.6 mL plus normal saline 0.2 mL as a palatal injection. Pain was measured during injection, 8 minutes afterward, and during extraction using a visual analog scale. Initial palatal anesthesia and patients' satisfaction were measured using a 5-score verbal rating scale. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, analysis of variance, and Pearson χ2 test. Differences with a P value less than .05 were considered significant. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were included in the study. The average pain of injection was comparable among all study groups (P = .933). Pain during extraction in the articaine group was significantly less than that experienced in the placebo groups (P < .001), although the differences between placebo groups were insignificant. Satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the articaine group compared with the placebo groups (P < .001), with comparable results between placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although the anesthetic effects of single placebo-controlled buccal injections of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine were comparable, the level of anesthetic adequacy was statistically less than that achieved by 4% articaine given by the standard technique. These results do not justify the buccal and non-palatal infiltration of articaine or lidocaine as an effective alternative to the standard technique in the extraction of maxillary molar teeth.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]