Comparative Study of the Efficacy of 4% Articaine<i>vs</i>2% Lidocaine in Surgical Removal of Bilaterally Impacted Mandibular Third Molars

Mittal, Jyoti; Kaur, Gurinder; Mann, Harmunish S; Narang, Samisha; Kamra, Mohit; Kapoor, Shekhar; Madhu, SV; Kataria, Ramneet

doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2329

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 114 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mittal et al (2018) compared the effectiveness of 4% articaine with that of 2% lidocaine in surgical extraction of the impacted mandibular third molar. They concluded that 4% articaine had a faster onset than 2% lidocaine did, and 4% articaine induced longer duration of anesthesia than 2% lidocaine did [ 14 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of lidocaine with articaine buccal injection in reducing complications following impacted mandibular third molar surgery: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial

Naghipour

Esmaeelinejad

Dehnad

et al. 2020

J Dent Anesth Pain Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Complications following impacted third molar surgery significantly affect patients' quality of life during the immediate postoperative period. This study aimed to achieve the proper anesthesia method by comparing the effect of the application of lidocaine alone with the application of lidocaine and articaine simultaneously in reducing the complications during and following impacted mandibular third molar surgery. Methods: The study design was a split-mouth double-blind randomized clinical trial. The study was conducted on 13 patients (26 samples) referred for elective surgical removal of bilateral impacted mandibular third molar with similar difficulty on both sides. Each patient underwent similar surgical procedures on two separate appointments. Each patient randomly received 2% lidocaine for conventional inferior alveolar nerve block and 4% articaine for local infiltration before the surgery on one side (group A) and 2% lidocaine alone (for both block anesthesia and infiltration) before the surgery on the other side (group B). Intraoperative and postoperative variables for both groups were established and statistically analyzed. Results: The findings showed that pain on the first day after surgery in group A was significantly lower than that in group B. The patients in group A mentioned experiencing less discomfort following the surgery. The increased horizontal swelling on the first and third days following surgery and oblique swelling on the seventh day in patients in group B were statistically significant. Conclusion: Choosing an appropriate anesthetic drug for oral surgery, specifically impacted third molar surgery, is dependent on the clinician's opinion, however; it seems that the combination of lidocaine and articaine may control the patient's pain significantly better than lidocaine alone.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to a similar study [ 14 ], the onset of anesthesia beginning was 99.2 ± 10.54 seconds, and considering 95% confidence interval and 90% power, the sample size was estimated to be 26 (PASS 11, NCSS, LLC, Kaysville, Utah, USA). The study population comprised 26 samples (13 patients) aged between 20 and 35 years.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of lidocaine with articaine buccal injection in reducing complications following impacted mandibular third molar surgery: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial

Naghipour

Esmaeelinejad

Dehnad

et al. 2020

J Dent Anesth Pain Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, 14 RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were selected for qualitative and quantitative synthesis (34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47).…”

Section: -Study Selection and Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All studies were two-arm trials, wherein one treatment arm included patients administered articaine 4% and the other involved the use of one of the following anaesthetics: lidocaine 2% (35)(36)(37)(38)(42)(43)(44)(45), lidocaine 4% (34), mepivacaine 2% (40) or bupivacaine 0.5% (39,41,46,47).…”

Section: -Study Selection and Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As shown in Figure 2 and Supplementary File 1, three of the selected studies were determined to have a high risk of bias due to performance (39,44), attrition (42) and/or reporting bias (39,42,44). The risk of bias for most of the papers included in the meta-analysis (34)(35)(36)(37)(38)40,41,43,45,47) was unclear; this was mainly due to the lack of data reporting the random 7 sequence generation and allocation concealment or a description of the blinding methods.…”

Section: Risk-of-bias Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Safety and efficacy of 4% articaine in mandibular third-molar extraction

Santos-Sanz¹,

Toledano‐Serrabona²,

Gay‐Escoda³

2020

The Journal of the American Dental Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Local anaesthesia for surgical extraction of mandibular third molars: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparative Study of the Efficacy of 4% Articainevs2% Lidocaine in Surgical Removal of Bilaterally Impacted Mandibular Third Molars

Abstract: No significant difference was recorded in the anesthetic efficacy between the two solutions.

Cited by 12 publications

References 114 publications

Comparison of lidocaine with articaine buccal injection in reducing complications following impacted mandibular third molar surgery: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial

Comparison of lidocaine with articaine buccal injection in reducing complications following impacted mandibular third molar surgery: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial

Safety and efficacy of 4% articaine in mandibular third-molar extraction

Local anaesthesia for surgical extraction of mandibular third molars: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About