Removal of maxillary teeth with buccal 4% Articaine without using palatal anesthesia—A comparative double blind study

Kandasamy, Saravanan; Rethish, Elangovan; John, Reena Rachel; C, Nantha Kumar

doi:10.1016/j.ajoms.2013.12.001

Cited by 16 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The current study confirms the results of Kandasamy et al 19 and Malamed et al 10 who evaluated the pain during the dental restoration and complex operations. However, this study examined the effect of articaine during the pulpotomy treatment, and this anesthetic agent was more effective in reducing the pain compared with lidocaine.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…However, this study examined the effect of articaine during the pulpotomy treatment, and this anesthetic agent was more effective in reducing the pain compared with lidocaine. Kandasamy et al 19 examined the articaine effect on the removal of maxillary teeth with lidocaine in children. Malamed et al 10 also compared the effect of articaine with lidocaine during the restorative treatment and the pulpotomy treatment in children.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Visual Analog Scale Scores in Pain Assessment during Pulpotomy using Different Injection Materials in Children Aged 6 to 8 and 8 to 10 Years

Alinejhad

Bahrololoomi

Navabazam

et al. 2018

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Visual Analog Scale Scores in Pain Assessment during Pulpotomy using Different Injection Materials in Children Aged 6 to 8 and 8 to 10 Years

Alinejhad

Bahrololoomi

Navabazam

et al. 2018

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another study by Somuri et al [ 15 ] showed that the routine use of a palatal injection for removal of maxillary premolar teeth may not be required when articaine is used as the local anaesthetic. Moreover, a comparative double blind study was carried out by Kandasamya et al [ 16 ] to evaluate the effectiveness of bony diffusion of articaine and lignocaine for the removal of maxillary teeth without the need for palatal injection. The results of this study indicate that articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 produced more effective buccal vestibule-palatal anaesthesia than the 2% lignocaine with 1:80,000, when an interval of 10 min was allowed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Articaine More Potent than Mepivacaine for Use in Oral Surgery?

Gazal

2018

JOMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo investigate the potency and speed of action of 4% articaine and 2% mepivacaine for maxillary teeth extractions.Material and MethodsNinety-four patients, aged between 16 to 70 years old, were recruited in this study. Two regimens were randomly administered over one visit. Patients of treatment group 1 received mepivacaine 2% with 1:100,000 adrenaline, whereas treatment group 2 - articaine 4% with 1:100,000 adrenaline. The onset time of pulp anaesthesia for maxillary teeth indicated for extraction was determined by electronic pulp testing. At any point of trial (10 minutes), the anesthetized tooth becomes unresponsive for maximal pulp stimulation (64 reading), the extraction was carried out.ResultsIn this study, 85 patients had successful local anaesthetic followed by extraction within the study duration time (10 min). However, 5 patients had failed dental extraction (4 in mepivacaine group and 1 in articaine group). Patients in the articaine buccal infiltration group recorded faster onset time of action regarding anaesthesia and teeth extraction than patients in mepivacaine buccal infiltration group (P = 0.03).ConclusionsArticaine is an effective anaesthetic with a rapid onset, comparable to mepivacaine in infiltrative techniques used for maxillary teeth extraction. However, articaine has clinically achieved faster dental anaesthesia and earlier teeth extraction than mepivacaine. So, articaine can be the local anaesthetic of first choice in oral surgery.

show abstract

“…Badcock et al [3] reported that 86.3% of maxillary third molars could be extracted only with 2.2 ml of 2% lignocaine BI. However, Kandasamy et al [8] found that all maxillary teeth extractions required supplemental palatal injection with 1.7 ml of 2% lignocaine BI. The results of these previous studies point out that the concentration and amount of LA influence the palatal diffusion efficacy of the maxillary BI technique.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In recent years, many clinical studies have compared the palatal diffusion efficiencies of 4% articaine BI and 2% lignocaine BI for maxillary teeth extractions. Kandasamy et al [ 8 ] compared the palatal bony diffusion of a single BI of 1.7 ml of 4% articaine with that of 1.7 ml of 2% lignocaine for maxillary teeth extractions and remarked that the 2% lignocaine group required more supplemental palatal injections than the 4% articaine group. Similarly, Sharma et al [ 9 ] found that the pain scores on probing the palatal mucosa after BI of 1.8 ml of 2% lignocaine were statistically higher than those of 4% articaine during the extraction of maxillary posterior teeth.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single buccal infiltration of high concentration lignocaine versus articaine in maxillary third molar surgery

Phyo

Chaiyasamut

Kiattavorncharoen

et al. 2020

J Dent Anesth Pain Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This research evaluated the numbness produced by lignocaine at an equal or higher concentration than that of 4% articaine through a single point of injection for maxillary third molar surgery. This randomized double-blind study was conducted to compare the anesthetic efficiency of 4% lignocaine with that of 4% articaine in impacted maxillary third molar surgery using a single buccal infiltration alone. Methods: The study participants were 30 healthy patients requiring the bilateral surgical removal of symmetrically-positioned maxillary third molars. Using a split-mouth design, each patient randomly received buccal infiltration of 1.7 ml of 4% lignocaine and 1.7 ml of 4% articaine during two separate appointments. After 15 minutes of anesthetic injection, surgery was performed by the same surgeon using a consistent technique on both sides. Pinprick test pain scores of the buccal and palatal gingiva of the maxillary third molar after 10 minutes and 15 minutes latencies, pain scores during the surgery, the need for supplemental anesthesia, and patients' satisfaction with anesthetic efficiency were recorded. Surgery performed without supplemental anesthesia was categorized as successful. Results: The success rates of 4% lignocaine and 4% articaine (83.34% vs. 86.67%, P = 1.00) were not significantly different. Only 5 cases (4 cases in the articaine group and 1 case in the lignocaine group) reported mild pain and pressure sensation (NRS ≤ 1) on probing at the palatal side after 15 minutes of latency (P = 0.25). The pain scores of maxillary third molar surgery in the two groups were not significantly different (P > 0.05). Moreover, the statistical analysis confirmed the comparable patient satisfaction of two study groups (P = 0.284). Conclusion: This study provides evidence that single buccal infiltrations of 4% lignocaine and 4% articaine have comparable anesthetic efficacy and success rates for impacted maxillary third molar surgery. Both 4% lignocaine and 4% articaine can produce effective palatal anesthesia and pain control using buccal infiltration alone after 15 minutes of latency.

show abstract

Removal of maxillary teeth with buccal 4% Articaine without using palatal anesthesia—A comparative double blind study

Cited by 16 publications

References 11 publications

Comparison of Visual Analog Scale Scores in Pain Assessment during Pulpotomy using Different Injection Materials in Children Aged 6 to 8 and 8 to 10 Years

Comparison of Visual Analog Scale Scores in Pain Assessment during Pulpotomy using Different Injection Materials in Children Aged 6 to 8 and 8 to 10 Years

Is Articaine More Potent than Mepivacaine for Use in Oral Surgery?

Single buccal infiltration of high concentration lignocaine versus articaine in maxillary third molar surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About