Comparison of the efficacy of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 and 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 buccal infiltration for single maxillary molar extraction: a double-blind, randomised, clinical trial

Rayati, Farshid; Haeri, Mona; Norouziha, Azade; Jabbarian, Razieh

doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.09.009

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the lidocaine group, 83.3% (25) of the patients underwent extraction without the need for supplemental injection while 16.7% (five) did not. In the study by Rayati et al [48], pain was recorded subjectively as the answer "yes" or "no" when the patients were asked whether their extractions were painful; 36% of the patients (27) in the articaine group answered in the affirmative while 90.63% (58) in the lidocaine group answered in the affirmative.…”

Section: Single Buccal Articaine Compared With Single Lidocainementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The risk of bias (Figure 2 ) was evaluated for each study following the Cochrane guidelines [ 20 ]. Most of the studies involved randomization [ 23 , 29 , 31 , 35 - 38 , 46 - 48 , 51 , 53 ], with four exceptions [ 21 , 28 , 43 , 5 ]. Most also involved allocation concealment, again with four exceptions [ 28 , 45 , 46 , 51 ].…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The single-blinded design was followed in the studies by Somuri et al [ 21 ], Fan et al [ 29 ], Luqman et al [ 31 ], Bataineh et al [ 35 ], and Saravanan et al [ 38 ]. The studies by Lima Jr et al [ 23 ], Sandilya et al [ 37 ], Chandrasekaran et al [ 43 ], Phyo et al [ 47 ], Rayati et al [ 48 ], and Al-Mahalawy et al [ 53 ] used a double-blinded design, and that by Kumar et al [ 36 ] used a triple-blinded design. The other studies, by Bataineh et al [ 28 ], Uckan et al [ 45 ], Sochenda et al[ 46 ], and Iyengar et al [ 51 ] did not specify the design.…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five of the studies evaluated procedural pain during the extraction of maxillary teeth for the comparison of single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with single buccal infiltration of 2% lidocaine Bataineh et al [ 35 ], Kumar et al [ 36 ], Saravanan et al [ 38 ], Chandrasekaran et al [ 43 ], Rayati et al [ 48 ]. In one study by Phyo et al [ 47 ], the comparison was between 4% articaine and 4% lidocaine.…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Can Single Buccal Infiltration With 4% Articaine Induce Sufficient Analgesia for the Extraction of Maxillary Teeth? A Systematic Literature Review

Alsager,

ALGUBEAL,

Alanazi

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of single buccal infiltration of articaine for extracting upper teeth. A search of the PubMed, Ovid SP, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases for English-language studies published between 2000 and 2021 was performed on August 26, 2022, based on the pre-specified question using the MeSH terms [(buccal) and (articaine) and (infiltration) and (dental)]. Of the 16 clinical trials identified involving 1,339 patients, six compared the subjective procedural pain associated with single buccal infiltration of articaine with that of lidocaine, three of which reported reduced pain and the other three greater success in extraction for the articaine group. Four of the 16 studies compared the procedural pain associated with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with double (buccal and palatal/lingual) infiltration; two reported insignificant differences between the groups; and the other two reported greater success using buccal and palatal injections. Five of the 16 studies compared the procedural pain associated with single buccal articaine with double buccal and palatal/lingual infiltration of 2% lidocaine and reported insignificant differences. The other of the 16 studies compared the subjective pain associated with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine 1:100:000 with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine 1:200:000 and found a statistically significant difference. All of these studies concluded that upper permanent maxillary teeth can be extracted using only a 4% articaine buccal infiltration, but further investigation is necessary to determine whether this approach can replace the gold standard of buccal and palatal infiltration.

show abstract

Section: Single Buccal Articaine Compared With Single Lidocainementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Can Single Buccal Infiltration With 4% Articaine Induce Sufficient Analgesia for the Extraction of Maxillary Teeth? A Systematic Literature Review

Alsager,

ALGUBEAL,

Alanazi

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the mucosa of the palate is close to the periosteum, and there is an extensive neural network, so infiltration anesthesia in the palatal region is painful and irritating. Multiple studies have shown that although the efficacy of buccal infiltration anesthesia of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine for maxillary molar extraction is still controversial, it can provide similar effects to buccal-palatal infiltration anesthesia in other maxillary dental regions ( Deshpande et al, 2020 ; Phyo et al, 2020 ; Rayati et al, 2021 ). The effect of 2% lidocaine infiltration on the mandible is not sufficiently stable.…”

Section: Intraoperative Prophylaxismentioning

confidence: 99%

Physiology of pregnancy and oral local anesthesia considerations

Zhou

Zhong

Pan

et al. 2023

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Safe and effective local anesthesia is a prerequisite for emergency oral surgeries and most dental treatments. Pregnancy is characterized by complex physiological changes, and increased sensitivity to pain. Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to oral diseases, such as caries, gingivitis, pyogenic granuloma and third molar pericoronitis. Maternally administered drugs can affect the fetus through the placenta. Therefore, many physicians and patients are reluctant to provide or accept necessary local anesthesia, which leads to delays in the condition and adverse consequences. This review is intended to comprehensively discuss the instructions for local anesthesia in the oral treatment of pregnant patients. Methodology An in-depth search on Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed to review articles concerned with maternal and fetal physiology, local anesthetic pharmacology, and their applications for oral treatment. Results Standard oral local anesthesia is safe throughout the pregnancy. At present, 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine is considered to be the anesthetic agent that best balances safety and efficacy for pregnant women. Maternal and fetal considerations must be taken into account to accommodate the physiological and pharmacological changes in the gestation period. Semi-supine position, blood pressure monitoring, and reassurance are suggested for high-risk mothers to reduce the risk of transient changes in blood pressure, hypoxemia, and hypoglycemia. For patients with underlying diseases, such as eclampsia, hypertension, hypotension, and gestational diabetes, the physicians should use epinephrine cautiously and control the dose of anesthetic. New local anesthesia formulations and equipment, which contribute to minimizing injection pain and relieving the anxiety, have and are being developed but remain understudied. Conclusions Understanding the physiological and pharmacological changes during pregnancy is essential to ensure the safety and efficiency of local anesthesia. Optimal outcomes for the mother and fetus hinge on a robust understanding of the physiologic alterations and the appropriate selection of anesthetic drugs and approaches.

show abstract

Efficacy of analgesia promoted by lidocaine and articaine in third molar extraction surgery. A split-mouth, randomized, controlled trial

de Souza Santos,

Bonatto,

Mendes

et al. 2024

Oral Maxillofac Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of the efficacy of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 and 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 buccal infiltration for single maxillary molar extraction: a double-blind, randomised, clinical trial

Cited by 3 publications

References 16 publications

Can Single Buccal Infiltration With 4% Articaine Induce Sufficient Analgesia for the Extraction of Maxillary Teeth? A Systematic Literature Review

Can Single Buccal Infiltration With 4% Articaine Induce Sufficient Analgesia for the Extraction of Maxillary Teeth? A Systematic Literature Review

Physiology of pregnancy and oral local anesthesia considerations

Efficacy of analgesia promoted by lidocaine and articaine in third molar extraction surgery. A split-mouth, randomized, controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About