Cargando…

Anesthetic Efficacy of Single Buccal Infiltration of 4% Articaine and 2% Lignocaine in Extraction of Maxillary 1(st) Molar

BACKGROUND: The extraction of tooth being the most common procedure in oral surgery should be pain free with limited dosage and limited needlepricks. Articaine being unique among amide local anesthetics contains a thiophene group, which increases its liposolubility, and an ester group which helps bi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kumar, D Prasanna, Sharma, Mandeep, Patil, Vinay, Subedar, Rohit Singh, Lakshmi, G Vijaya, Manjunath, Nithin Varalakonda
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6933991/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31909001
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ams.ams_201_18
_version_ 1783483319381393408
author Kumar, D Prasanna
Sharma, Mandeep
Patil, Vinay
Subedar, Rohit Singh
Lakshmi, G Vijaya
Manjunath, Nithin Varalakonda
author_facet Kumar, D Prasanna
Sharma, Mandeep
Patil, Vinay
Subedar, Rohit Singh
Lakshmi, G Vijaya
Manjunath, Nithin Varalakonda
author_sort Kumar, D Prasanna
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The extraction of tooth being the most common procedure in oral surgery should be pain free with limited dosage and limited needlepricks. Articaine being unique among amide local anesthetics contains a thiophene group, which increases its liposolubility, and an ester group which helps biotransformation in plasma. Because of the high diffusion properties, it can be used as a single buccal infiltration to extract a maxillary tooth. AIM AND OBJECTIVE: Objective of the study was to compare the efficacy of single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with that of 2% lignocaine for maxillary first molar extraction. METHODOLOGY: A triple blind randomized controlled study was carried on 100 patients of age group 18-60 years who required maxillary first molar extraction, visiting the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery. They were included in the study after obtaining informed consent. Buccal infiltration of 1.8 ml of anesthetic solution was given randomly to 100 patients with appropriate blinding of the cartridges. Objective signs were checked. If any additional injection was given, it was noted as type and number of rescue injection given. Postoperatively VAS score and surgeon's quality of anesthesia was noted. Duration of anesthesia was measured every 5 minutes for 50 minutes from infiltration. RESULTS: Out of 50 patients in group A (Articaine), in 44 patients extraction was done without the need of additional injection whereas in group B(Lignocaine), 29 patients require additional infiltration on the palatal side. The VAS score values for group A were also significantly less in comparison with group B. The mean duration of anesthesia for Group A being (71.70 ± 17.82 min) in 44 patients who only received buccal infiltration. INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSION: The efficacy of single buccal injection of articaine is comparable to buccal and palatal injection of lignocaine.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6933991
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69339912020-01-06 Anesthetic Efficacy of Single Buccal Infiltration of 4% Articaine and 2% Lignocaine in Extraction of Maxillary 1(st) Molar Kumar, D Prasanna Sharma, Mandeep Patil, Vinay Subedar, Rohit Singh Lakshmi, G Vijaya Manjunath, Nithin Varalakonda Ann Maxillofac Surg Original Article - Comparative Study BACKGROUND: The extraction of tooth being the most common procedure in oral surgery should be pain free with limited dosage and limited needlepricks. Articaine being unique among amide local anesthetics contains a thiophene group, which increases its liposolubility, and an ester group which helps biotransformation in plasma. Because of the high diffusion properties, it can be used as a single buccal infiltration to extract a maxillary tooth. AIM AND OBJECTIVE: Objective of the study was to compare the efficacy of single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with that of 2% lignocaine for maxillary first molar extraction. METHODOLOGY: A triple blind randomized controlled study was carried on 100 patients of age group 18-60 years who required maxillary first molar extraction, visiting the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery. They were included in the study after obtaining informed consent. Buccal infiltration of 1.8 ml of anesthetic solution was given randomly to 100 patients with appropriate blinding of the cartridges. Objective signs were checked. If any additional injection was given, it was noted as type and number of rescue injection given. Postoperatively VAS score and surgeon's quality of anesthesia was noted. Duration of anesthesia was measured every 5 minutes for 50 minutes from infiltration. RESULTS: Out of 50 patients in group A (Articaine), in 44 patients extraction was done without the need of additional injection whereas in group B(Lignocaine), 29 patients require additional infiltration on the palatal side. The VAS score values for group A were also significantly less in comparison with group B. The mean duration of anesthesia for Group A being (71.70 ± 17.82 min) in 44 patients who only received buccal infiltration. INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSION: The efficacy of single buccal injection of articaine is comparable to buccal and palatal injection of lignocaine. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6933991/ /pubmed/31909001 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ams.ams_201_18 Text en Copyright: © 2019 Annals of Maxillofacial Surgery http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article - Comparative Study
Kumar, D Prasanna
Sharma, Mandeep
Patil, Vinay
Subedar, Rohit Singh
Lakshmi, G Vijaya
Manjunath, Nithin Varalakonda
Anesthetic Efficacy of Single Buccal Infiltration of 4% Articaine and 2% Lignocaine in Extraction of Maxillary 1(st) Molar
title Anesthetic Efficacy of Single Buccal Infiltration of 4% Articaine and 2% Lignocaine in Extraction of Maxillary 1(st) Molar
title_full Anesthetic Efficacy of Single Buccal Infiltration of 4% Articaine and 2% Lignocaine in Extraction of Maxillary 1(st) Molar
title_fullStr Anesthetic Efficacy of Single Buccal Infiltration of 4% Articaine and 2% Lignocaine in Extraction of Maxillary 1(st) Molar
title_full_unstemmed Anesthetic Efficacy of Single Buccal Infiltration of 4% Articaine and 2% Lignocaine in Extraction of Maxillary 1(st) Molar
title_short Anesthetic Efficacy of Single Buccal Infiltration of 4% Articaine and 2% Lignocaine in Extraction of Maxillary 1(st) Molar
title_sort anesthetic efficacy of single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine and 2% lignocaine in extraction of maxillary 1(st) molar
topic Original Article - Comparative Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6933991/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31909001
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ams.ams_201_18
work_keys_str_mv AT kumardprasanna anestheticefficacyofsinglebuccalinfiltrationof4articaineand2lignocaineinextractionofmaxillary1stmolar
AT sharmamandeep anestheticefficacyofsinglebuccalinfiltrationof4articaineand2lignocaineinextractionofmaxillary1stmolar
AT patilvinay anestheticefficacyofsinglebuccalinfiltrationof4articaineand2lignocaineinextractionofmaxillary1stmolar
AT subedarrohitsingh anestheticefficacyofsinglebuccalinfiltrationof4articaineand2lignocaineinextractionofmaxillary1stmolar
AT lakshmigvijaya anestheticefficacyofsinglebuccalinfiltrationof4articaineand2lignocaineinextractionofmaxillary1stmolar
AT manjunathnithinvaralakonda anestheticefficacyofsinglebuccalinfiltrationof4articaineand2lignocaineinextractionofmaxillary1stmolar