Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine

The Korean Dental Society of Anesthsiology (대한치과마취과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of the effects of articaine and bupivacaine in impacted mandibular third molar tooth surgery: a randomized, controlled trial

  • Tokuc, Berkay (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Kocaeli University) ;
  • Coskunses, Fatih Mehmet (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Kocaeli University)
  • Received : 2021.08.30
  • Accepted : 2021.11.09
  • Published : 2021.12.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The aim of this randomized, triple-blind trial was to determine the anesthetic, analgesic, and hemodynamic effects of articaine and bupivacaine in the extraction of impacted mandibular third molar teeth. Methods: Twenty-six patients who underwent removal of bilaterally symmetric mandibular third molars were randomly assigned to articaine and bupivacaine groups in a split-mouth design. The onset of anesthetic action, intraoperative comfort, total amount of solution used, duration of postoperative anesthesia and analgesia, rescue analgesic use, postoperative pain, intraoperative bleeding, and hemodynamic parameters were evaluated. Results: In the articaine group, the onset of anesthetic activity was faster, intraoperative comfort was greater, and effective anesthesia required less local anesthetic solution. The bupivacaine group showed a significantly longer duration of postoperative anesthesia and analgesia, in addition to lower visual analog scale values at 6 and 48 hours postoperatively. There were no significant differences between the two solutions regarding rescue analgesic medication use, intraoperative bleeding, or hemodynamics. Conclusion: Articaine showed greater clinical efficacy than bupivacaine in intraoperative anesthesia, achieving faster onset of anesthetic action and greater patient comfort while also requiring less reinforcement during surgery. However, bupivacaine was superior in terms of postoperative anesthesia, reducing postoperative pain due to its residual anesthetic and analgesic effects. Both anesthetic solutions led to similar hemodynamics at low doses in mandibular third molar surgery

Keywords

References

  1. Trowbridge HO, Emling RC. Inflammation: a review of the process. 5th ed. Chicago, Quintessence. 1997.
  2. Olmedo-Gaya MV, Manzano-Moreno FJ, Munoz-Lopez JL, Vallecillo-Capilla MF, Reyes-Botella C. Double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial on analgesic efficacy of local anesthetics articaine and bupivacaine after impacted third molar extraction. Clin Oral Investig 2018; 22: 2981-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2386-1
  3. Chapman PJ. Postoperative pain control for outpatient oral surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1987; 16: 319-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0901-5027(87)80153-4
  4. Chapman PJ, Macleod AW. A clinical study of bupivacaine for mandibular anesthesia in oral surgery. Anesth Prog 1985; 32: 69-72.
  5. Volpato MC, Ranali F, Ramacciato JC, Oliveira PC, Ambrosano GMB, Groppo FC. Anesthetic efficacy of bupivacaine solutions in inferior alveolar nerve block. Anesth Prog 2005; 52: 132-5. https://doi.org/10.2344/0003-3006(2005)52[132:AEB]2.0.CO;2
  6. Reddy KV, Jadhav A, Bhola N, Mishra A, Dakshinkar P. Is 0.75% ropivacaine more efficacious than 2% lignocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine for IANB in surgical extraction of impacted lower third molar? Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019; 23: 225-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-019-00779-w
  7. Malamed SF. Handbook of local anesthesia. 5th ed. St Louis, Mosby. 2004.
  8. Gregorio LV, Giglio FP, Sakai VT, Modena KC, Colombini BL, Calvo AM, et al. A comparison of the clinical anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 0.5% bupivacaine (both with 1:200,000 epinephrine) for lower third molar removal. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 106: 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.11.024
  9. Winter GB. Principles of exodontia as applied to the impacted mandibular third molar: a complete treatise on the operative technic with clinical diagnoses and radiographic interpretations. St. Louis, American medical book company. 1926.
  10. Santos CF, Modena KC, Giglio FP, Sakai VT, Calvo AM, Colombini BL, et al. Epinephrine concentration (1:100,000 or 1:200,000) does not affect the clinical efficacy of 4% articaine for lower third molar removal: a double-blind, randomized, crossover study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 65: 2445-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2007.04.020
  11. Sisk AL. Comparison of etidocaine and lidocaine for control of intra- and post-operative bleeding and pain. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1986; 44: 16-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(86)90009-1
  12. Kharma MY, Sakka S, Aws G, Tarakji B, Nassani MZ. Reliability of Pederson scale in surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars: proposal of new scale. J Oral Dis 2014; 2014: 1-4.
  13. Cox B, Durieux ME, Marcus MA. Toxicity of local anaesthetics. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2003; 17: 111-36. https://doi.org/10.1053/bean.2003.0275
  14. Pellicer-Chover H, Cervera-Ballester J, Sanchis-Bielsa JM, Penarrocha-Diago MA, Penarrocha-Diago M, Garcia-Mira B. Comparative split-mouth study of the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 0.5% bupivacaine in impacted mandibular third molar extraction. J Clin Exp Dent 2013; 5: e66-e71.
  15. Trullenque-Eriksson A, Guisado-Moya B. Comparative study of two local anesthetics in the surgical extraction of mandibular third molars: bupivacaine and articaine. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011; 16: e390-e6. https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.16.e390
  16. Bouloux GF, Punnia-Moorthy A. Bupivacaine versus lidocaine for third molar surgery: a double-blind, randomized, crossover study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999; 57: 510-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(99)90063-0
  17. Sancho-Puchades M, Vilchez-Perez MA, Valmaseda-Castellon E, Paredes-Garcia J, Berini-Aytes L, Gay-Escoda C. Bupivacaine 0.5% versus articaine 4% for the removal of lower third molars. a crossover randomized controlled trial. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2012; 17: e462-e8.
  18. Troullos ES, Goldstein DS, Hargreaves KM, Dionne RA. Plasma epinephrine levels and cardiovascular response to high administered doses of epinephrine contained in local anesthesia. Anesth Prog 1987; 34: 10-3.
  19. Malamed SF. Local anesthetics: dentistry's most important drugs, clinical update 2006. J Calif Dent Assoc 2006; 34: 971-6.
  20. Fernandez C, Reader A, Beck M, Nusstein J. A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of bupivacaine and lidocaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks. J Endod 2005; 31: 499-503. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.don.0000167395.61075.38
  21. Nayyar MS, Yates C. Bupivacaine as pre-emptive analgesia in third molar surgery: Randomised controlled trial. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 44: 501-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2005.09.012
  22. Thakare A, Bhate K, Kathariya R. Comparison of 4% articaine and 0.5% bupivacaine anesthetic efficacy in orthodontic extractions: prospective, randomized crossover study. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan 2014; 52: 59-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aat.2014.04.006
  23. Grossi GB, Maiorana C, Garramone RA, Borgonovo A, Creminelli L, Santoro F. Assessing postoperative discomfort after third molar surgery: a prospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 65: 901-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2005.12.046
  24. Penarrocha M, Sanchis JM, Saez U, Gay C, Bagan JV. Oral hygiene and postoperative pain after mandibular third molar surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001; 92: 260-4. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2001.115722