A Clinical Study of Efficacy of 4% Articaine Hydrochloride Versus 2% Lignocaine Hydrochloride in Dentistry

BACKGROUND: Articaine in an anesthetic agent, which is used less frequently in dentistry. It differs from other agents due to the presence of a thiophene ring in its molecular structure. Few groups of researchers claim that it is superior to lignocaine. Hence, the purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of 4% articaine hydrochloride and 2% lignocaine hydrochloride in the orthodontic extraction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was carried out in 50 patients who needed the orthodontic extraction in the age group from 15 to 25 years. Experimental sites were injected with 0.5-1 ml of 4% articaine HCL containing 1:100000 adrenaline, incrementally in the buccal vestibule without palatal anaesthesia. Control sites were injected with 0.8-1 ml of 2% lignocaine HCL containing 1:100000 adrenaline, incrementally in the buccal vestibule. All the parameters, that is volume, duration, time of anesthesia and pain rating were noted and statistically compared. RESULT: When statistically compared mean volume of articaine (0.779 ± 0.1305) was less than lignocaine (1.337 ± 0.2369). Mean time of onset of articaine was 1.012 ± 0.2058 min, Whereas that of was 1.337 ± 0.2369. Pain rating showed not much difference, but in the lignocaine group palatal anesthesia was required in all the patients. Finally, the mean duration of anesthesia in articaine group was 69.08 ± 18.247, whereas in the lignocaine group was 55.66 ± 6.414. CONCLUSION: Articaine has proved its usefulness in all regards. Literatures have proved its usefulness. Like other anesthetic, it is safe and more effective. It surpasses the need of additional palatal anesthesia. Rapid inactivation in liver and plasma reduces the risk of the drug overdose. All the above factors make it an ideal anesthetic agent to be used in dentistry.