Articaine and Lidocaine Mandibular Buccal Infiltration Anesthesia: A Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Cross-Over Study

Objective. Recently, some authors reported that maxillary teeth could be extracted without using palatal anesthesia, but they did not clearly specify the extracted teeth. This is important, because apparently the local anesthetic solution infiltrates the maxilla and achieves a sufficient anesthesia in the palatal side. Thus, thickness of the bone may affect the depth of anesthesia. The aim of this study was to compare the depth of anesthesia in different parts of the maxilla when only a buccal infiltration anesthesia was done.Patients and Method. The maxilla was divided into anterior, premolar, and molar regions. In each region, 15 teeth were extracted with a single buccal infiltration. The patient marked the pain level on a numerical rating scale.Results. Anesthesia depth was sufficient and was not significantly different () among three maxillary regions.Conclusion. Except for surgical interventions, all maxillary teeth can be extracted using only a buccal infiltration anesthesia.

Download Full-text

Comparison of Buccal Infiltration of 4% Articaine With 1 : 100,000 and 1 : 200,000 Epinephrine for Extraction of Maxillary Third Molars With Pericoronitis: A Pilot Study

Anesthesia Progress ◽

10.2344/0003-3006-60.2.42 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 60 (2) ◽

pp. 42-45 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

José Lacet Lima ◽

Eduardo Dias-Ribeiro ◽

Julierme Ferreira-Rocha ◽

Ramon Soares ◽

Fábio Wildson Gurgel Costa ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Third Molar ◽

Controlled Clinical Trial ◽

Third Molars ◽

Double Blind ◽

Experienced Pain ◽

Group 2 ◽

Upper Third ◽

Buccal Infiltration ◽

Palatal Mucosa ◽

Group 1

Abstract We compared the buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with 1 : 100,000 or 1 : 200,000 epinephrine without a palatal injection for the extraction of impacted maxillary third molars with chronic pericoronitis. This prospective, double-blind, controlled clinical trial involved 30 patients between the ages of 15 and 46 years who desired extraction of a partially impacted upper third molar with pericoronitis. Group 1 (15 patients) received 4% articaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine and group 2 (15 patients) received 4% articaine with 1 : 200,000 epinephrine by buccal infiltration. None of the patients in group 1 reported pain, but 3 patients in group 2 reported pain, which indicated a need for a supplementary palatal injection. The palatal injections were all successful in eliminating the pain. Two additional patients in group 2 experienced pain when the suture needle penetrated their palatal mucosa. Based on these results, 4% articaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine was found to be more effective for the removal of upper third molars in the presence of pericoronitis than 4% articaine hydrochloride with 1 : 200,000 epinephrine when only a buccal infiltration was used.

Download Full-text

Efficacy of Articaine versus Lidocaine in Block and Infiltration Anesthesia Administered in Teeth with Irreversible Pulpitis: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Study

Journal of Endodontics ◽

10.1016/j.joen.2012.10.012 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 39 (1) ◽

pp. 6-10 ◽

Cited By ~ 40

Author(s):

Hengameh Ashraf ◽

Majeed Kazem ◽

Omid Dianat ◽

Fatemeh Noghrehkar

Keyword(s):

Blind Study ◽

Double Blind Study ◽

Double Blind ◽

Irreversible Pulpitis ◽

Infiltration Anesthesia

Download Full-text

Efficacy of Lignocaine in Gel and Spray form during Buccal Infiltration Anesthesia in Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice ◽

10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1611 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 15 (6) ◽

pp. 750-754 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Anshul Sharma ◽

BS Suprabha

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Randomized Clinical Trial ◽

Rating Scale ◽

Permanent Teeth ◽

Chi Square ◽

Topical Anesthetic ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Spray Form ◽

Buccal Infiltration ◽

Infiltration Anesthesia

ABSTRACT Aim To compare the efficacy of 15% lignocaine spray and 8% lignocaine gel as a topical anesthetic, in reducing pain, during buccal infiltration in children. Materials and methods Forty-two patients aged between 7 and 12 years requiring restorative procedures/extraction/pulp therapy of primary/ permanent teeth in the maxillary arch, under buccal infiltration anesthesia were selected for the study. The participants were randomly allocated into 2 groups of 21 each. In group A, 8% lignocaine gel and in group B, 15% lignocaine spray was applied prior to buccal infiltration. Pain was assessed using Wong-Baker faces pain rating scale (WBFPRS) and faces legs activity cry and consolability (FLACC) painscale. Results Pearson's chi-square test revealed that there was no significant difference in the FLACC scores of the two groups (p = 0.54). Independent t-test demonstrated that there was no significant difference in Wong-Bakers faces pain score between the two agents (p = 0.07). Conclusion There is no significant difference in the efficacy of 15% lignocaine spray and 8% lignocaine gel as a topical anesthetic in controlling pain during buccal infiltration anesthesia, in children. How to cite this article Sharma A, Suprabha BS, Shenoy R, Rao A. Efficacy of Lignocaine in Gel and Spray form during Buccal Infiltration Anesthesia in Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014;15(6):750-754.

Download Full-text