Is permanent maxillary tooth removal without palatal injection possible?

Uçkan, Sina; Dayangac, Emre; Araz, Kenan

doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.12.005

Cited by 66 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of this study are in concordance with the many studies[192021222324] while another study had contradictory outcomes, in which they could not establish the presence of 4% articaine HCl at the palatal tissues after buccal injection. [25]…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

The effectiveness of articaine and lidocaine single buccal infiltration versus conventional buccal and palatal injection using lidocaine during primary maxillary molar extraction: A randomized control trial

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Despite the advent of modern injection techniques, palatal injection continues to be a painful experience for children.Aims:To compare the pain experienced during extraction of maxillary primary molars with conventional lignocaine anesthesia versus lignocaine and articaine buccal infiltration in children aged 6–14 years.Materials and Methods:A prospective randomized triple blinded study was conducted with ninety children (n = 90), randomly allocated to receive lignocaine conventional anesthesia (Group I [control group]), and buccal infiltration using articaine (Group II [articaine group]) or lignocaine (Group III [lignocaine group]). A composite score of self-report (faces pain scale-revised), behavioral measure (face legs activity cry consolability scale), and a physiological response (pulse rate) was measured following maxillary primary molar extraction.Statistical Analysis Used:To test the mean difference between two groups, Students’ t-test was used and among the three groups, one-way ANOVA with post hoc test was used.Results:Articaine group had significantly lower pain scores for self-report (P < 000.1) and behavioral measures (P < 000.1) while there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) between articaine and control groups during primary maxillary molar extraction.Conclusion:Maxillary primary molar extraction procedure can be successfully accomplished by bypassing the palatal injection. Articaine buccal infiltration can be considered as an alternative to conventional local anesthesia for the extraction of maxillary primary molars.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

The effectiveness of articaine and lidocaine single buccal infiltration versus conventional buccal and palatal injection using lidocaine during primary maxillary molar extraction: A randomized control trial

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Following its FDA approval, 4% articaine has proven to be safe and effective for use as a dental local anesthetic for both maxillary and mandibular procedures [1,4,7,9,13,14]. For dental procedures, 2% lidocaine with epinephrine is considered the "gold standard", and the anesthetic to which others are often compared [12].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Equivalent Doses of Lidocaine and Articaine in Maxillary Posterior Tooth Extractions: Case Series

Friedl¹,

Bashutski²,

Rashidi³

2012

JOMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesLocal anaesthesia is the standard of care during dental extractions. With the advent of newer local anesthetic agents, it is often difficult for the clinician to decide which agent would be most efficacious in a given clinical scenario. This study assessed the efficacy of equal-milligram doses of lidocaine and articaine in achieving surgical anaesthesia of maxillary posterior teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis.Material and MethodsThis case-series evaluated a total of 41 patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis in a maxillary posterior tooth. Patients randomly received an infiltration of either 3.6 mL (72 mg) 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 1.8 mL (72 mg) 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in the buccal fold and palatal soft tissue adjacent to the tooth. After 10 minutes, initial anaesthesia of the tooth was assessed by introducing a sterile 27-gauge needle into the gingival tissue adjacent to the tooth, followed by relief of the gingival cuff. Successful treatment was considered to have occurred when the tooth was extracted with no reported pain. Data was analyzed with the Fisher's exact test, unpaired t-test and normality test.ResultsTwenty-one patients received lidocaine and 20 received articaine. Forty of the 41 patients achieved initial anaesthesia 10 minutes after injection: 21 after lidocaine and 19 after articaine (P = 0.488). Pain-free extraction was accomplished in 33 patients: 19 after lidocaine and 14 after articaine buccal and palatal infiltrations (P = 0.226).ConclusionsThere was no significant difference in efficacy between equivalent doses of lidocaine and articaine in the anaesthesia of maxillary posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis.

show abstract

“…According to the results of their study, the degree of pain in patients with single buccal injection and buccal in- jection plus a palatal injection had no significant difference. They concluded that removal of maxillary permanent teeth without palatal anesthesia injection is possible when 2 mL of articaine is injected in buccal vestibule depth (6).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some subjective studies used articaine to remove tooth only with buccal injection without palatal injection supplements. The results of the studies by Sharma (1), Somuri (2), Fan (4), Lima-Junior (3) and Uckan (6) showed that routine use of palatal injection for permanent maxillary tooth removal was not required.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of Buccal Infiltration Injections of 4% Articaine on the Palatal Tissue in the Maxillary Teeth Removal

Fakour¹,

Moghadam²,

MohammadNaebi³

2015

Dent Clin Exp J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Several studies showed that 4% articaine had greater tissue penetration than other anesthetics. Objectives: The current study aimed to compare the efficacy of buccal injection of local 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine on the numbness of palatal tissue. Materials and Methods: One hundred-ninety-six patients were randomly divided into two groups of 100. A group received 4% articaine and the other group received just 2% lidocaine buccal injection. The examination of palatal tissue numbness was conducted by decole and luxation of palatal tissue. Pain assessment was conducted by verbal response scale (VRS). Results:The Chi-square test showed a significant relationship between the type of anesthesia and pain (P < 0.0001). The patients treated with 4% articaine had less pain. Conclusions: Although 4% articaine can cause more anesthesia of palatal tissue compared to 2% lidocaine, its routine use is not recommended due to its incomplete success.

show abstract

Is permanent maxillary tooth removal without palatal injection possible?

Cited by 66 publications

References 6 publications

The effectiveness of articaine and lidocaine single buccal infiltration versus conventional buccal and palatal injection using lidocaine during primary maxillary molar extraction: A randomized control trial

The effectiveness of articaine and lidocaine single buccal infiltration versus conventional buccal and palatal injection using lidocaine during primary maxillary molar extraction: A randomized control trial

A Comparison of Equivalent Doses of Lidocaine and Articaine in Maxillary Posterior Tooth Extractions: Case Series

Effect of Buccal Infiltration Injections of 4% Articaine on the Palatal Tissue in the Maxillary Teeth Removal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About