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

The efficacy of infiltration anaesthesia for adult mandibular incisors: a randomised double-blind cross-over trial comparing articaine and lidocaine buccal and buccal plus lingual infiltrations

“…For both test teeth the results were significantly better when articaine was used irrespective of the technique employed. This is similar to the findings of others [2][3][4] who reported that 4% articaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline is more effective than 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline when used for infiltration anaesthesia in the mandibular molar region.…”

“…2,3,7,19,22,23 In the present investigation, there were no significant differences in the mean pain scores between 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine (both with 1:100,000 adrenaline) or between the two methods of administration (buccal or buccal plus lingual). The only difference was that the lingual infiltration was more uncomfortable than lingual penetration used as the dummy injection.…”

“…1 Recent studies [2][3][4] have shown that 4% articaine with adrenaline, which was first marketed in the United Kingdom in 1999, is more effective than 2% lidocaine with adrenaline for mandibular permanent first molar anaesthesia following buccal infiltration in the lower jaw.…”

Local Anesthesia Part 2: Technical Considerations

“…Primary comparisons were between 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine. Following infiltration of 2.2 mL 37 or 1.8 mL 38 in the buccal fold adjacent to the mandibular first molar, both investigators found that articaine with epinephrine was statistically superior to lidocaine with epinephrine in providing pulpal anesthesia to the first molar 37 and second and first molars and to the second and first premolars. 38 Other studies demonstrated the superiority of articaine to lidocaine by buccal infiltration, lingual infiltration, or buccal and lingual infiltration in the mandibular incisor region.…”

Efficacy of 4 % Articaine and 2 % Lidocaine: A clinical study

“…The most noticeable difference observed between the two injection solutions concerned the duration of anesthesia, which was significantly shortened under the low dose solution. Foster et al [17], Kanaa et al [44], Robertson et al [47] and Haase et al [53] concluded that buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar with 4 % Articaine of 1:100,000 epinephrine will result in a higher success rate than 2 % Lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, but the duration of pulpal anesthesia will decline over 60 min with either formulation. Tofoli et al [34] and Moore et al [48] reported that 4 % Articaine anesthetic formulations containing epinephrine provided excellent surgical pain control.…”