Cargando…

Articaine versus Lidocaine in only buccal infiltration anesthesia for the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth. A prospective split-mouth randomized-controlled clinical study

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of a single labial infiltration of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine for the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth without an additional lingual injection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized-controlled, split-mouth clinical study was implemen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Al-Mahalawy, Haytham, El-Mahallawy, Yehia, Abdelrahman, Hams H., Refahee, Shaimaa Mohsen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10463316/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37641122
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03292-5
_version_ 1785098202284818432
author Al-Mahalawy, Haytham
El-Mahallawy, Yehia
Abdelrahman, Hams H.
Refahee, Shaimaa Mohsen
author_facet Al-Mahalawy, Haytham
El-Mahallawy, Yehia
Abdelrahman, Hams H.
Refahee, Shaimaa Mohsen
author_sort Al-Mahalawy, Haytham
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of a single labial infiltration of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine for the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth without an additional lingual injection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized-controlled, split-mouth clinical study was implemented. Healthy adult patients seeking bilateral extraction of mandibular anterior teeth were included in this study. Teeth extractions were randomly assigned to two equal groups, where one mandibular anterior tooth was extracted using a solitary labial infiltration of either 4% articaine (the study group) or 2% lidocaine (the control group). After 14 days, the other mandibular anterior tooth was extracted using the other local anesthetic agent. The selection of the anesthetic agent injected in the first session was done in a randomized fashion. After 5 min of local anesthetic injection, the tooth was extracted, and each patient was asked to record the intensity of the extraction pain using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were included in the study. The efficacy of a single labial injection for mandibular anterior teeth extraction was established by the fact that none of the patients in the study or control group required re-administration of local anesthesia. The mean VAS for pain control during tooth extraction was 1.16 ± 0.93 for the articaine group and 1.71 ± 0.90 for the lidocaine group. The pain score showed a statistically significant decrease in the articaine group compared to that in the lidocaine group (P = 0.017). CONCLUSION: Although the anesthetic effects of only buccal infiltration of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine for extraction of mandibular anterior teeth were comparable, the use of 4% articaine would have more effective and predictable outcomes. CLINICALTRIALS.ORG: (ID: NCT05223075) 3/2/2022. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12903-023-03292-5.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10463316
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104633162023-08-30 Articaine versus Lidocaine in only buccal infiltration anesthesia for the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth. A prospective split-mouth randomized-controlled clinical study Al-Mahalawy, Haytham El-Mahallawy, Yehia Abdelrahman, Hams H. Refahee, Shaimaa Mohsen BMC Oral Health Research OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of a single labial infiltration of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine for the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth without an additional lingual injection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized-controlled, split-mouth clinical study was implemented. Healthy adult patients seeking bilateral extraction of mandibular anterior teeth were included in this study. Teeth extractions were randomly assigned to two equal groups, where one mandibular anterior tooth was extracted using a solitary labial infiltration of either 4% articaine (the study group) or 2% lidocaine (the control group). After 14 days, the other mandibular anterior tooth was extracted using the other local anesthetic agent. The selection of the anesthetic agent injected in the first session was done in a randomized fashion. After 5 min of local anesthetic injection, the tooth was extracted, and each patient was asked to record the intensity of the extraction pain using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were included in the study. The efficacy of a single labial injection for mandibular anterior teeth extraction was established by the fact that none of the patients in the study or control group required re-administration of local anesthesia. The mean VAS for pain control during tooth extraction was 1.16 ± 0.93 for the articaine group and 1.71 ± 0.90 for the lidocaine group. The pain score showed a statistically significant decrease in the articaine group compared to that in the lidocaine group (P = 0.017). CONCLUSION: Although the anesthetic effects of only buccal infiltration of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine for extraction of mandibular anterior teeth were comparable, the use of 4% articaine would have more effective and predictable outcomes. CLINICALTRIALS.ORG: (ID: NCT05223075) 3/2/2022. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12903-023-03292-5. BioMed Central 2023-08-28 /pmc/articles/PMC10463316/ /pubmed/37641122 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03292-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Al-Mahalawy, Haytham
El-Mahallawy, Yehia
Abdelrahman, Hams H.
Refahee, Shaimaa Mohsen
Articaine versus Lidocaine in only buccal infiltration anesthesia for the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth. A prospective split-mouth randomized-controlled clinical study
title Articaine versus Lidocaine in only buccal infiltration anesthesia for the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth. A prospective split-mouth randomized-controlled clinical study
title_full Articaine versus Lidocaine in only buccal infiltration anesthesia for the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth. A prospective split-mouth randomized-controlled clinical study
title_fullStr Articaine versus Lidocaine in only buccal infiltration anesthesia for the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth. A prospective split-mouth randomized-controlled clinical study
title_full_unstemmed Articaine versus Lidocaine in only buccal infiltration anesthesia for the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth. A prospective split-mouth randomized-controlled clinical study
title_short Articaine versus Lidocaine in only buccal infiltration anesthesia for the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth. A prospective split-mouth randomized-controlled clinical study
title_sort articaine versus lidocaine in only buccal infiltration anesthesia for the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth. a prospective split-mouth randomized-controlled clinical study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10463316/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37641122
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03292-5
work_keys_str_mv AT almahalawyhaytham articaineversuslidocaineinonlybuccalinfiltrationanesthesiafortheextractionofmandibularanteriorteethaprospectivesplitmouthrandomizedcontrolledclinicalstudy
AT elmahallawyyehia articaineversuslidocaineinonlybuccalinfiltrationanesthesiafortheextractionofmandibularanteriorteethaprospectivesplitmouthrandomizedcontrolledclinicalstudy
AT abdelrahmanhamsh articaineversuslidocaineinonlybuccalinfiltrationanesthesiafortheextractionofmandibularanteriorteethaprospectivesplitmouthrandomizedcontrolledclinicalstudy
AT refaheeshaimaamohsen articaineversuslidocaineinonlybuccalinfiltrationanesthesiafortheextractionofmandibularanteriorteethaprospectivesplitmouthrandomizedcontrolledclinicalstudy