A comparison of the clinical anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 0.5% bupivacaine (both with 1:200,000 epinephrine) for lower third molar removal

Gregorio, Leonardo Vieira Lima; Giglio, Fernando Paganeli Machado; Sakai, Vivien Thiemy; Modena, Karin C. S.; Colombini, Bella Luna; Calvo, Adriana Maria; Sipert, Carla Renata; Dionísio, Thiago José; Lauris, José Roberto Pereira; Faria, Flávio Augusto Cardoso de; Júnior, Alceu Sérgio Trindade

doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.11.024

Cited by 62 publications

(141 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is in accordance with Malamed et al [8,9], Rebolledo et al [50]. Gregorio et al [54] reported the intra operative analgesia evoked by Articaine may be explained by its ability to readily diffuse through tissues due to the presence of thiophene group in the molecule which increases liposolubility. Sumer et al [57] reported that painfulness of local anesthetic injections may be related to the pH of the injected solutions.…”

Section: Duration Of Anesthesiasupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Rebolledo et al [50] reported 220.8 min for Articaine while 168.2 min for Lidocaine anesthesia. The long period of analgesia for Articaine explained by Gregorio et al [54] in their study stated that the concentration of Articaine in the alveolus of a tooth after extraction is about 100 times higher than in systemic circulation. This saturable local Articaine mechanism has been considered as possibly contributing to the observed duration of the local anesthetic effect.…”

Section: Duration Of Anesthesiamentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Colombini et al [43] 25 min) for Lidocaine. The long period of analgesia for Articaine explained by Gregorio et al [54] stated that onset of action of Articaine was 1.66 ± 0.13 min. Statistically significant difference was not present in action of onset of the two drugs.…”

Section: Onset Of Actionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Santos et al [49] reported that epinephrine concentration in 4 % Articaine solution does not influence the clinical efficacy of local anesthetic in terms of anesthetic properties (latency, post operative analgesia, post operative anesthesia and quality of anesthesia), intra operative bleeding and hemodynamic parameters in patients undergoing lower third molar removal. Gregorio et al [54] stated that 4 % Articaine provided shorter time of onset, comparable homeostasis and post operative pain control with a shorter duration of soft tissue anesthesia in lower third molar removal. Uckan et al [39] and Lacet-Lima et al [58] reported that Articaine demonstrated relatively good vestibule palatal diffusion with efficacy rates of anesthesia 98 %.…”

Section: Efficacy Of Articainementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Efficacy of 4 % Articaine and 2 % Lidocaine: A clinical study

Kambalimath¹,

Dolas

Kambalimath

et al. 2012

J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This study was undertaken to compare the anesthetic properties of 4 % Articaine hydrochloride and 2 % Lidocaine both with 1:100,000 epinephrine for mandibular inferior alveolar nerve anesthesia. Materials and Methods Thirty healthy patients were included in this randomized double-blind clinical cross over study. Each subject received each test solution at different times. Inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia was used for extraction of bilateral impacted mandibular third molar on different occassions. The time of onset of action, duration of anesthesia, efficacy of anesthesia, hemodynamic parameters and oxygen saturation were monitored during the procedure. A visual analog scale was used to assess pain during surgery, and thus subjectively evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of the two solutions. Results No statistically significant differences were seen in the onset and duration of anesthesia between the Articaine and Lidocaine solutions. Conclusions 4 % Articaine offers better clinical performance than 2 % Lidocaine, particularly in terms of latency and duration of the anesthetic effect. However, no statistically significant differences in anesthetic efficacy were recorded between the two solutions.

show abstract

Section: Duration Of Anesthesiasupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Duration Of Anesthesiamentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Onset Of Actionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Efficacy Of Articainementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Efficacy of 4 % Articaine and 2 % Lidocaine: A clinical study

Kambalimath¹,

Dolas

Kambalimath

et al. 2012

J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…44 Articaine also had a significantly shorter latency and duration of soft tissue anaesthesia than bupivacaine but a similar duration of postoperative analgesia. 45 For maxillary tooth extractions, it has been suggested that a palatal injection may not be necessary when articaine is delivered in a buccal infiltration [46][47][48] and that most impacted maxillary third molar extractions with GENERAL control during endodontic procedures. 60 It may be difficult to achieve profound anaesthesia in mandibular posterior teeth, especially when the IANB technique is implemented.…”

Section: Comparison With Other Anaestheticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Articaine: a review of the literature

Yapp¹,

Hopcraft

Parashos

2011

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia

George

Morgan

Meechan

et al. 2018

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For success (absence of pain), low-quality evidence suggests that 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine for root treating of posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis, and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 4% prilocaine plain when surgical procedures/periodontal treatment was provided. Moderate-quality evidence shows that 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin when surgical procedures were performed.Adverse events were rare. Moderate-quality evidence shows no difference in pain on injection when 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine were compared, although lidocaine resulted in slightly less pain following injection.Many outcomes tested our primary objectives in simulated scenarios, although clinical alternatives may not be possible.Further studies are needed to increase the strength of the evidence. These studies should be clearly reported, have low risk of bias with adequate sample size, and provide data in a format that will allow meta-analysis. Once assessed, results of the 34 'Studies awaiting classification (full text unavailable)' may alter the conclusions of the review.

show abstract

A comparison of the clinical anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 0.5% bupivacaine (both with 1:200,000 epinephrine) for lower third molar removal

Cited by 62 publications

References 27 publications

Efficacy of 4 % Articaine and 2 % Lidocaine: A clinical study

Efficacy of 4 % Articaine and 2 % Lidocaine: A clinical study

Articaine: a review of the literature

Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About