The anesthetic efficacy of articaine in buccal infiltration of mandibular posterior teeth

Robertson, Douglas; Nusstein, John; Reader, Al; Beck, Mike; McCartney, Melissa

doi:10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0324

Cited by 179 publications

(230 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

181

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For both test teeth the results were significantly better when articaine was used irrespective of the technique employed. This is similar to the findings of others [2][3][4] who reported that 4% articaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline is more effective than 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline when used for infiltration anaesthesia in the mandibular molar region.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…2,3,7,19,22,23 In the present investigation, there were no significant differences in the mean pain scores between 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine (both with 1:100,000 adrenaline) or between the two methods of administration (buccal or buccal plus lingual). The only difference was that the lingual infiltration was more uncomfortable than lingual penetration used as the dummy injection.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 51%

“…One method is to determine the number or percentage of subjects who obtain two or more consecutive episodes of maximal electronic pulp tester stimulation (80 reading) without response. 3,[21][22][23] We employed a more stringent definition in this study, which was similar to those described by others. 24,25 An impression of anaesthetic response can also be obtained by counting the number of negative responses to pulp testing across a study period, or by assessing shifts from baseline pulp testing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 Recent studies [2][3][4] have shown that 4% articaine with adrenaline, which was first marketed in the United Kingdom in 1999, is more effective than 2% lidocaine with adrenaline for mandibular permanent first molar anaesthesia following buccal infiltration in the lower jaw.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The efficacy of infiltration anaesthesia for adult mandibular incisors: a randomised double-blind cross-over trial comparing articaine and lidocaine buccal and buccal plus lingual infiltrations

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 51%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The efficacy of infiltration anaesthesia for adult mandibular incisors: a randomised double-blind cross-over trial comparing articaine and lidocaine buccal and buccal plus lingual infiltrations

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The most noticeable difference observed between the two injection solutions concerned the duration of anesthesia, which was significantly shortened under the low dose solution. 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.…”

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

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

The anesthetic efficacy of articaine in buccal infiltration of mandibular posterior teeth

Cited by 179 publications

References 19 publications

The efficacy of infiltration anaesthesia for adult mandibular incisors: a randomised double-blind cross-over trial comparing articaine and lidocaine buccal and buccal plus lingual infiltrations

The efficacy of infiltration anaesthesia for adult mandibular incisors: a randomised double-blind cross-over trial comparing articaine and lidocaine buccal and buccal plus lingual infiltrations

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

Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About