| 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
Gufaran Ali Syed1, Sanjyot A Mulay2
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
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_710_20
|
|
|
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]* |
|
 |
|
