A Randomized Controlled Trail Comparing the Efficacy of 0.5% Centbucridine to 2% Lignocaine as Local Anesthetics in Dental Extractions

Abstract

The development of local anesthesia in dentistry has marked the beginning of a new era in terms of pain control. Lignocaine is the most commonly used local anesthetic (LA) agent even though it has a vasodilative effect and needs to be combined with adrenaline. Centbucridine is a non-ester, non amide group LA and has not been comprehensively studied in the dental setting and the objective was to compare it to Lignocaine. This was a randomized study comparing the onset time, duration, depth and cardiovascular parameters between Centbucridine (0.5%) and Lignocaine (2%). The study was conducted in the dental outpatient department at the Government Dental College in India on patients attending for the extraction of lower molars. A total of 198 patients were included and there were no significant differences between the LAs except those who received Centbucridine reported a significantly longer duration of anesthesia compared to those who received Lignocaine. None of the patients reported any side effects. Centbucridine was well tolerated and its substantial duration of anesthesia could be attributed to its chemical compound. Centbucridine can be used for dental procedures and can confidently be used in patients who cannot tolerate Lignocaine or where adrenaline is contraindicated.

A Comparative Study Between 0.5% Centbucridine HCL and 2% Lignocaine HCL With Adrenaline (1:200,000): Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

“…Three prospective studies were included in this study (Dugal et In first study the patient received 3 ml of anesthetic for nerve blocks using either 0.5% Centbucridine HCI or 2% Lignocaine HCI with adrenaline (1:200,000) (Dugal et al, 2009). In the second study patients randomly received a single anesthetic dose of either 0.5% Centbucridine HCI or 2% Lignocaine HCI with adrenaline (1:200,000) (Mansuri et al, 2011). In last study both drugs were supplied in equal amounts in identical vials labeled only with a code number (Goyal et al ., 2013).…”

“…The use of adrenaline as a vasoconstrictor is sometimes contraindicated for medically compromised patients. To overcome these disadvantages, other local anesthetics have been developed over the past few years (Dugal et al, 2009;Mansuri et al, 2011 ;Goyal et al ., 2013).…”

“…Search for a more effective local anesthetic led to the development of centbucridine (Mansuri et al, 2011 ) which was mainly developed in India (Muthu et al, 2007). Centbucridine, chemically known as 4-Nbutylamino-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroacridine hydrochloride, is a new quinoline derivative with LA action.…”

Local Anesthetics

“…Centbucridine has been investigated for infiltration, conjunctival surface, in peripheral nerves, neuroaxial anesthesia, intravenous regional anesthesia; however, the majority of studies are in dental anesthesia [9,[50][51][52]. Most studies compare 0.5% centbucridine vs. 2% lidocaine, with similar anesthetic results, although some have found longer anesthetic duration in patients who were treated with centbucridine [51,53]. Centbucridine can be used with confidence in dental patients who cannot tolerate other LAs or when epinephrine is contraindicated.…”

A comparative study between 0.5% centbucridine and 2% lignocaine with adrenaline (1:200,000) for bilateral extraction of mandibular premolar using nerve block anesthesia: a double blind randomized controlled clinical study

“…2 Samir Mansuri et al, compared the efficacy of 0.5% centbucridine to 2% lignocaine and concluded that centbucridine has inherent vasoconstrictor ability. 1 As centbucridine has inherent vasoconstriction ability it can be used without addition of vasoconstrictor, while lignocaine is used with 1:200,000 adrenaline to nullify its inherent vasodilating property. Dugal et al, did a comparative study between 0.5% centbucridine HCl and 2% lignocaine HCl with adrenaline (1:200,000).…”