Pooja Gopal Choudhary¹*, Francis Akkara², Vikas Dhupar³ and Rakhi Shende⁴

¹Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Goa Dental College and Hospital, Bambolim, Goa, India
²Professor, OMFS, Goa Dental College and Hospital, Bambolim, Goa, India
³Professor and HOD, OMFS, Goa Dental College and Hospital, Bambolim, Goa, India
⁴Consultant,CInI,MP,BDS,MPH

*Corresponding Author: Pooja Gopal Choudhary, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Goa Dental College and Hospital, Bambolim, Goa, India.

Received: October 06, 2023; Published: October 25, 2023

Abstract

Background: Surgical extraction of impacted third molar is one of the most common surgical procedure performed by a maxillofacial surgeon [1]. To provide a pain-free treatment to patients, numerous local anesthetic agents has been used by surgeon. However, gold standard has been lignocaine hydrochloride [2]. In spite of introduction in 1976, articaine is not renowned in dentistry. In this randomised clinical trial, we aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of articaine in comparison with lignocaine for surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molar.

Method: The study was done in the department of OMFS on 50 patients of age between 18 and 40 years of both genders receiving either 4% articaine hydrochloride (HCl) with 1: 100,000 epinephrine or 2% lignocaine HCl with 1: 200,000 epinephrine. Drug volume, onset of anaesthesia, duration of anaesthesia and duration of postoperative analgesia intake with post-extraction sequels were evaluated for both groups with follow up till 7 post operative days. The parametric and non-parametric test used to analyse data using SPSS Statistics 21.0 program.

Result: 50 patients included in the study out of which 19 were female and 31 males, underwent surgical extraction performed by the same oral surgeon. Age range was 18 to 60 with a peak incidence in the age group of 18-30 years. The author found statistically significant difference between study groups in relation to mean volume (articaine - 2.07 ± 0.37 ml and lignocaine - 3.48 ± 0.85 ml, P value-0.00).

Conclusion: The efficacy of 4% articaine is comparable with that of 2% lignocaine and hence, can be used as an alternative to lignocaine in surgical extraction of mandibular third molar.

Keywords: Local Anesthesia; Lignocaine; Articaine

References

1. Mercier P and Precious D. “Risks and benefits of removal of impacted third molars”. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 21 (1922): 17-27.
2. Snoeck M. “Articaine: a review of its use for local and regional anesthesia”. Local and Regional Anesthesia 5 (2012): 23-33.
3. Jain N and John R. “Anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lignocaine during the surgical removal of the third molar: A comparative prospective study”. Anesthesia: Essays and Research 2 (2016): 356-361.
4. Kambalimath DH., et al. “Efficacy of 4 % Articaine and 2 % Lidocaine: A clinical study”. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery1 (2013): 3-10.
5. Thaminee S. “Articaine in Dentistry”. S Thaminee /J Pharm Sci and Res9 (2015): 792-794.
6. Oss V. “Clinical effects and pharmacokinetics of articainic acid in one volunteer after intravenous administration”. Pharmaceutisch Weekblad Scientific Edition 10 (1988): 284-286.
7. Oertel R., et al. “Clinical Pharmacokinetics of Articaine”. Clinical Pharmacokinetics 6 (1997): 417-425.
8. Saralaya S. “4% Articaine and 2% Lignocaine for Surgical Removal of Third Molar by Mandibular Nerve Block: A Randomized Clinical Trial for Efficacy and Safety”. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery (2018): 1-7.
9. Malamed SF., et al. “Articaine hydrochloride: A study of the safety of a new amide local anesthetic”. Journal of the American Dental Association2 (2001): 177-185.
10. Rebolledo AS., et al. “Comparative study of the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine in inferior alveolar nerve block during surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars”. Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral y Cirugia Bucal 12 (2007): E139-144.
11. Martínez-Rodríguez N., et al. “Evaluation of the anaesthetic properties and tolerance of 1:100,000 articaine versus 1:100,000 lidocaine. A comparative study in surgery of the lower third molar”. Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral y Cirugia Bucal2 (2012): 345-351.
12. Berwal V., et al. “Comparison of Anaesthetic Efficiency of lidocaine and Articaine in Third Molar Extraction”. Journal of Advanced Medical and Dental Sciences Research 11 (2016): 6-14.
13. Vähätalo K. “Articaine and Lidocaine for Maxillary Infiltration Anesthesia”. Anesthesia Progress 40 (1993): 114-116.
14. Naghipour A., et al. “Comparison of lidocaine with articaine buccal injection in reducing complications following impacted mandibular third molar surgery: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial”. Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine 4 (2020): 213-221.

Citation

Citation: Pooja Gopal Choudhary., et al. “Comparative Evaluation of Analgesic Effect of 4% Articaine with 2% Lignocaine in Surgical Extraction of Mandibular Third Molar: A Randomised Prospective Clinical Trial".Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 7.11 (2023): 53-58.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2023 Pooja Gopal Choudhary., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.