Contemporary Clinical Dentistry
   
  Home | About us | Editorial board | Search
Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Advertise
Instructions | Online submission| Contact us | Subscribe |

 

Login  | Users Online: 8125  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 61-68

Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine for buccal infiltration in adult patients with irreversible pulpitis of maxillary first molar: A prospective randomized study


1 Associate Professor, Endodontic Division, Faculty of Dentistry, Batterjee Medical College, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
2 Professor, PG & PhD Guide, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dr. D. Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pimpri, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Gufaran Ali Syed
Endodontic Division, Faculty of Dentistry, Batterjee Medical College, Jeddah
Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_710_20

Rights and Permissions

Objective: The purpose of this prospective, randomized study was to evaluate and compare the anesthetic efficacy of 0.8 ml of 4% articaine and 1.6 ml of 2% lidocaine administered through buccal infiltration (submucosal) only in adult male and female patients with irreversible pulpitis of maxillary 1st molar. Study Design: Two hundred patients with irreversible pulpitis of the maxillary first molar were divided into four study groups and received only buccal infiltration of either 0.8 ml of 4% articaine or 1.6 ml of 2% lidocaine. Endodontic access was begun 7 min after the solution deposition. The success was defined as “no pain (0 mm)” or “weak/mild pain (>0 mm and ≤54 mm)” during access opening, and during the first file insertion till working length. Results: The compiled data of the number of failed cases were analyzed by two sample proportion test and of mean pain scores were analyzed by Student's unpaired t-test. P < 0.05 was taken as statistically significant. No significant difference was found in the number of failed cases on using 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine (P > 0.05). Moreover, no significant difference was found in the number of failed cases between the genders in Group I (4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine) and also in Group II (2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine). On comparing the mean pain scores of failed cases, it has been found that females experience more pain than males in Group I (not significant) and Group II (significant). Conclusion: The efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine has been found to be better than 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine, as only 0.8 ml of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was effectively used as compared to 1.6 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine. Furthermore, females experience more pain as compared to males.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed316    
    Printed20    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded46    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal