Hemostatic and Anesthetic Efficacy of 4% Articaine HCl With 1:200,000 Epinephrine and 4% Articaine HCl With 1:100,000 Epinephrine When Administered Intraorally for Periodontal Surgery

Moore, Paul A.; Doll, Bruce; Delie, Robert A.; Hersh, Elliot V.; Korostoff, Jonathan; Johnson, S. C.; Goodson, J. Max; Halem, Stephen; Palys, Michael; Leonel, Juliana S.; Kozlowski, Vitoldo Antônio; Peterson, Carrie Y.; Hutcheson, Matthew

doi:10.1902/jop.2007.060314

Cited by 37 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Foster et al [17], Kanaa et al [44], Robertson et al [47] and Haase et al [53] concluded that buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar with 4 % Articaine of 1:100,000 epinephrine will result in a higher success rate than 2 % Lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, but the duration of pulpal anesthesia will decline over 60 min with either formulation. Tofoli et al [34] and Moore et al [48] reported that 4 % Articaine anesthetic formulations containing epinephrine provided excellent surgical pain control. For patients who can tolerate higher amounts of epinephrine, the 4 % Articaine 1:100,000 epinephrine formulations had the additional therapeutic advantage of providing better visualization of the surgical field and less bleeding.…”

Section: Efficacy Of Articainementioning

confidence: 99%

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: Efficacy Of Articainementioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…Moore et al 19 pointed out that 4% articaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine had the additional therapeutic advantage of providing better visualization of the surgical field and less bleeding. On the other hand, Santos et al 20 concluded that epinephrine concentration at 1 : 100,000 or 1 : 200,000 in a 4% articaine solution did not affect the clinical efficacy of this local anesthetic for lower third molar extraction with or without bone removal.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Buccal Infiltration of 4% Articaine With 1 : 100,000 and 1 : 200,000 Epinephrine for Extraction of Maxillary Third Molars With Pericoronitis: A Pilot Study

Lima¹,

Dias‐Ribeiro

Ferreira-Rocha

et al. 2013

Anesthesia Progress

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compared the buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with 1 : 100,000 or 1 : 200,000 epinephrine without a palatal injection for the extraction of impacted maxillary third molars with chronic pericoronitis. This prospective, double-blind, controlled clinical trial involved 30 patients between the ages of 15 and 46 years who desired extraction of a partially impacted upper third molar with pericoronitis. Group 1 (15 patients) received 4% articaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine and group 2 (15 patients) received 4% articaine with 1 : 200,000 epinephrine by buccal infiltration. None of the patients in group 1 reported pain, but 3 patients in group 2 reported pain, which indicated a need for a supplementary palatal injection. The palatal injections were all successful in eliminating the pain. Two additional patients in group 2 experienced pain when the suture needle penetrated their palatal mucosa. Based on these results, 4% articaine with 1 : 100,000 epinephrine was found to be more effective for the removal of upper third molars in the presence of pericoronitis than 4% articaine hydrochloride with 1 : 200,000 epinephrine when only a buccal infiltration was used.

show abstract

“…They concluded that, application of chlorhexidine reduced the incidence of alveolar osteitis and episodes of bleeding complications [16]. Barganza et al reported that the intra operative bleeding ranged from 17.80 ± 9.57 ml to 31.93 ± 15.72 ml depending on NSAIDs intake pre-operatively, whereas Moore et al [17,18] described that intra operative hemorrhage ranged from 54.9 ± 36.0 to 70.2 ± 53.0 ml depending on epinephrine concentration in the local anesthetic agent. Buckley et al studied blood loss in periodontal flap surgery using lidocaine 2% with either 1: 50,000 or 1: 100,000 epinephrine.…”

Section: Blood Loss and Dental Surgerymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, few sources of error includes variations in the patient's hemoglobin during operation, failure to collect all blood lost from the operative field and instability of hemoglobin that undergoes quick degradation, thus resulting an under estimation of the blood lost. In contrast to the previous methods, this method is expensive, time consuming, technique sensitive and requires trained personnel to carry through the whole procedure accurately [11,18,27,28].…”

Section: Volumetricmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intra-Operative Hemorrhage: A Review of Literature

Kathariya

2013

J Med Diagn Meth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the tremendous innovation in field of medical science and technology; intraoperative hemorrhage remains one of the major surgical complications encountered in day-to-day surgical practice. The morbidity and mortality associated with surgical hemorrhage are considerable and it remains a restraining factor for advanced surgical procedures. Intra operative hemorrhage may sometime cause significant complications and may even lead to alarming events.Clinical Significance: Clinicians should know the amount of blood loss during the surgical procedures to detect and treat any aberrant changes immediately. There are very few published reports on different techniques to measure intra-operative hemorrhage. However, there are on reports, which compile all the different techniques, which could be used for measuring intra-operative bleeding. This review compiles various ways to measure intra-operative blood loss to update and alert clinicians about its consequences.

show abstract

Hemostatic and Anesthetic Efficacy of 4% Articaine HCl With 1:200,000 Epinephrine and 4% Articaine HCl With 1:100,000 Epinephrine When Administered Intraorally for Periodontal Surgery

Cited by 37 publications

References 12 publications

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

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

Comparison of Buccal Infiltration of 4% Articaine With 1 : 100,000 and 1 : 200,000 Epinephrine for Extraction of Maxillary Third Molars With Pericoronitis: A Pilot Study

Intra-Operative Hemorrhage: A Review of Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About