Background: The objective of this double-masked, randomized, multicenter crossover study was to compare the efficacy of 4% articaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine (A100) to 4% articaine HCl with 1:200,000 epinephrine (A200) for providing effective local anesthesia and hemostasis for periodontal surgery.

Methods: Anesthetic efficacy was based on patient self-report and lack of need for reinjection during the surgical procedures. Hemostatic properties of the formulations were compared using ratings of the surgeons' ability to visualize the surgical field and expectation for bleeding. The volume of blood collected during each surgical session also was measured and compared.

Results: Forty-two adult subjects (26 males and 16 females, mean age 46.3 +/- 9.7 years) diagnosed with moderate to severe periodontal disease requiring local anesthesia for matched bilateral periodontal surgery were enrolled and completed the study. Subjects reported satisfactory surgical anesthesia following the A100 and A200 formulations; no supplemental local anesthesia was administered. Significant differences between the A100 and A200 treatments were found for the surgeons' ability to visualize the surgical field (rated as clear 83.3% of the time with A100 and 59.5% of the time with A200; P = 0.008), bleeding expectation (rated as equal to or better than expected 85.7% of the time with A100 and 71.4% of the time with A200; P = 0.034), and volume of blood loss (54.9 +/- 36.0 ml for A100 and 70.2 +/- 53.0 ml for A200; P = 0.018). Sixteen patients experienced 27 mild or moderate adverse events; the most common were postoperative pain (nine patients) and swelling (eight patients). Six adverse events may have been related to treatment. The frequency of adverse events did not vary between formulations.

Conclusions: For patients undergoing periodontal surgery, 4% articaine anesthetic formulations containing epinephrine (1:100,000 or 1:200,000) provided excellent surgical pain control. For patients who can tolerate higher amounts of epinephrine, the 4% articaine 1:100,000 epinephrine formulation had the additional therapeutic advantage of providing better visualization of the surgical field and less bleeding.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1902/jop.2007.060314DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

articaine hcl
16
1100000 epinephrine
12
periodontal surgery
12
local anesthesia
12
surgical field
12
adverse events
12
anesthetic efficacy
8
efficacy articaine
8
hcl 1200000
8
1200000 epinephrine
8

Similar Publications

A spectroscopic assessment of interaction between 4% articaine hydrochloride with adrenaline and various endodontic irrigants.

Dent Res J (Isfahan)

September 2020

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Meenakshi Ammal Higher Education and Research, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.

Background: Interaction between 2% lidocaine HCl (with and without adrenaline) and sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) resulted in a toxic precipitate formation. The aim of this study was to assess the interaction between 4% articaine hydrochloride with adrenaline (AHa) and commonly used endodontic irrigants 3% NaOCl, 2% chlorhexidine (CHX), and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) using spectroscopic analyses.

Materials And Methods: In this study, 3% NaOCl, 2% CHX, and 17% EDTA were mixed with 4% AHa individually.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Palatal injection of local anesthetics is the most painful injection. To obviate the need for palatal injections, local anesthetic agents with diffusibility are being investigated. Hence the present study was designed to analyze the anesthetic efficacy of 2% lidocaine hydrochloride (HCl) with 1:100,000 adrenaline and 4% articaine hydrochloride (HCl) with 1:100,000 adrenaline using single buccal infiltration for the extraction of maxillary premolars.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of buccal and lingual infiltration (B/L I) of 2% lignocaine HCl and buccal infiltration (BI) of 4% articaine for orthodontic extraction of mandibular premolars.

Materials And Method: One hundred and four patients (age group 14-26 years) were selected with the indication of bilateral mandibular first or second premolar extraction for orthodontic treatment. Patients were randomly distributed in 2 groups.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objective: To compare single buccal articaine injection versus conventional lignocaine buccal and palatal injections for uncomplicated maxillary tooth extractions.

Study Design: Single blinded randomized control trial.

Place And Duration Of Study: The outpatient department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, from February to September 2011.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Articaine in an anesthetic agent, which is used less frequently in dentistry. It differs from other agents due to the presence of a thiophene ring in its molecular structure. Few groups of researchers claim that it is superior to lignocaine.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!