• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.135-141
• /
• 2023

Background: The limited studies on the effect of buffering on the clinical efficacy of articaine have reported controversial results. The purpose of this study was to clinically compare the pain of injection, anesthetic success, onset, and duration of pulpal anesthesia of buffered 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 versus a non-buffered 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 formulation for buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar. Methods: Sixty-three volunteers were enrolled in the study. All volunteers received two injections consisting of a single mandibular first molar buccal infiltration with 1.8 ml of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 and 1.8 ml of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100000 buffered with 8.4% sodium bicarbonate. The infiltrations were applied in two separate appointments spaced at least one week apart. After injection of the anesthetic solution at the examined site, the first molar was pulp-tested every 2 min for the next 60 min. Results: Successful pulpal anesthesia was recorded in 69.8% of cases using non-buffered articaine solution and 76.2% of cases using buffered articaine solution, with no significant difference between the formulations (P = 0.219). The mean time of anesthesia onset for the volunteers with successful anesthetic outcome in both formulations (n = 43) was 6.6 ± 1.6 min for the non-buffered articaine solution and 4.5 ± 1.6 min for the buffered solution, which differed significantly (P = 0.001). In the same volunteers, the mean duration of pulpal anesthesia was 28.4 ± 7.1 min for non-buffered articaine solution and 30.2 ± 8.5 min for buffered articaine solution, with no significant difference between the formulations (P = 0.231). Considering the pain of injection, regardless of the anesthetic success, the mean values of VAS were 11.3 ± 8.2 mm for the non-buffered articaine solution and 7.8 ±6.5 mm for the buffered articaine solution, which differed significantly (P = 0.001 < 0.05). Conclusion: According to the present study, 4% articaine with epinephrine can benefit from buffering and provide better anesthetic behavior, with improved onset and less pain during injection.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.5
• /
• pp.303-312
• /
• 2020

Background: Lidocaine is the gold standard local anesthetic (LA) for UK pediatric dental treatment. Recent reports suggest frequent Articaine use in Europe and Canada, with evidence indicating more profound anesthesia. The aim of this study was to examine pediatric dentistry specialist experiences and practices relating to Articaine administration in the UK. Methods: A literature review was followed by a survey using an anonymous 15-item electronic questionnaire, which was sent to 200 registered British Society of Pediatric Dentistry (BSPD) specialists. Descriptive analyses, Z score, chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, and Spearman's correlation test were performed. Results: Sixty-one (30.5%) participants responded, and 12 (19.7%) indicated Articaine as their first line anesthetic. Articaine was used daily or weekly by 38 (62.3%) respondents, depending on the clinical context. Articaine was commonly used to avoid inferior alveolar nerve blocks and gain more profound anesthesia in abscessed or hypomineralized teeth. Participants reported significantly more adverse effects with lidocaine (Fisher's exact test, P < 0.0001) than with Articaine. Articaine was most often administered in children aged > 4 years via infiltration techniques. Only 15 (24.6%) respondents reported awareness of guidelines for Articaine use in pediatric patients. Conclusions: Articaine use in pediatric dentistry is common; however, evidence supporting its practice is limited. Several specialists follow conventions based on anecdotal evidence. Formulating guidance to aid decision-making when treating pediatric patients under LA would be beneficial.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.5
• /
• pp.387-394
• /
• 2022

Background: Dental pain management is an important aspect of patient management in pediatric dentistry. Articaine is considered the most successful anesthetic agent for infiltration anesthesia. Buffered articaine has been observed to have faster onset and longer duration of action with less pain on injection. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare pain on injection, onset of action, and pain during extraction using buffered (using Sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO₃)) and non-buffered 4% articaine (with 1:100000 adrenaline) infiltrations for primary maxillary molar extractions in 4-10-year-old children. Methods: Seventy children who required extraction of maxillary primary molars were enrolled in this triple-blind randomized study. Children undergoing extraction were randomly divided into two groups, with 35 in each group. The study group was the buffered articaine group; the control group was the non-buffered articaine group. Buccal and palatal infiltrations were administered with either buffered or non-buffered articaine. Subjective evaluation was done for pain on injection, pain during extraction using Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBFPR) and onset of anesthesia in seconds. Pain on injection, pain during extraction were objectively evaluated using Sound Eye Motor (SEM) scale and onset of anesthesia was also evaluated objectively by pricking with sharp dental probe. Results: The outcome was, significantly less pain on injection and significantly faster onset of anesthesia with significantly less pain during extraction for both subjective and objective evaluations in the buffered articaine group. Subgroup analysis was also performed and it showed variable results, with only significant difference for WBFPR scores in age subgroup 4-7 years for palatal infiltration. Conclusion: Less pain on injection, faster onset of anesthesia, and less pain during extraction were observed when buffered articaine was used for maxillary primary molar extraction.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.179-186
• /
• 2020

This systematic review aims to determine if a single buccal infiltration (without palatal infiltration in the maxilla and Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in the mandible) with 4% articaine can induce adequate analgesia for the extraction of primary molars (Maxillary and Mandibular) in children. PubMed, Ovid SP, and Embase were searched for studies published between January 1990 and March 2020 with the relevant MeSH terms. Titles and abstracts were screened preliminarily, followed by the full-texts of the included studies. Five articles were included for this systematic review. The outcome investigated was "Procedural pain during the extraction of primary molars after injection with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine in comparison to single buccal infiltration, double infiltration (buccal and palatal/lingual), and inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% lignocaine." Of the five studies that evaluated subjective pain during extraction, two reported no significant difference between the articaine and lignocaine groups, and the remaining three reported lower subjective pain during extraction in the articaine group. Only two studies evaluated objective pain scores during extraction, and both studies reported lower pain scores in the articaine group. There is insufficient evidence to justify the statement that a single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine alone is sufficient for the extraction of primary molars. Further evidence is required to justify the claim that palatal infiltrations and IANB can be replaced with the use of 4% articaine single buccal infiltration for the extraction of primary molars in children.

• Journal of The Korean Dental Society of Anesthesiology
• /
• v.4 no.1 s.6
• /
• pp.13-16
• /
• 2004

Background: Articaine, a new amide-type local anesthetic, was recently commercially available in Korea. The purpose of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy between articaine HCl and lidocaine HCl for the surgical extraction of bilateral mandibular impacted third molars. Patients and Methods: Forty young and healthy patients with bilateral impacted third molars were selected with permission. Randomly, one side of impacted third molar was operated under local anesthesia using 4% articaine and the other side under 2% lidocaine after 1 or 2 week recovery time. Intraoperative pain was evaluated via 0-10 cm visual analog scale (VAS) by both the patient and operator immediately after the operation. After 1 day and 7 days, the complications of local anesthesia were checked. Results: The pain VAS scores in articaine group, evaluated by both the patient and operator, were lower than those in lidocaine group, but they were not statistically significant (P = 0.44 and 0.54, respectively). The incidence of complications of local anesthesia between articaine and lidocaine was similar. Conclusion: In this study, articaine showed at least equal efficacy compared to lidocaine. The further dose-controlled study with more pharmacokinetic parameters will be needed.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.6
• /
• pp.575-582
• /
• 2021

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

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.121-127
• /
• 2017

Background: There are no studies regarding 4% articaine infiltration injection into the retro-molar area for an impacted lower third molar (LITM) surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of infiltration using 1.7 ml (single cartridge: SC) of 4% articaine versus 3.4 ml (double cartridges: DC) of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in LITM surgery. Method: This study involved 30 healthy patients with symmetrical LITM. The patients were assigned to receive either a DC or SC of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as a local anesthetic for each operation. Onset, duration, profoundness, need for additional anesthetic administration, total volume of anesthetic used, vitality of the tooth, and pain score during operation were recorded. Results: The DC of 4 % articaine had a significantly higher success rate (83.3%) than did the SC (53.3%; P<0.05). The duration of soft tissue anesthesia was longer in the DC group. The intra-operative pain was higher in the SC group with a significant (P < 0.05) requirement for a supplementary local anesthetic. Conclusion: We concluded that using DC for the infiltration injection had a higher success rate, longer duration of anesthesia, less intra-operative pain, and a lower amount of additional anesthesia than SC in the surgical removal of LITM. We recommend that a DC of 4% articaine and a 1:100,000 epinephrine infiltration in the retro-molar region can be an alternative anesthetic for LITM surgery.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.203-212
• /
• 2020

Background: This research evaluated the numbness produced by lignocaine at an equal or higher concentration than that of 4% articaine through a single point of injection for maxillary third molar surgery. This randomized double-blind study was conducted to compare the anesthetic efficiency of 4% lignocaine with that of 4% articaine in impacted maxillary third molar surgery using a single buccal infiltration alone. Methods: The study participants were 30 healthy patients requiring the bilateral surgical removal of symmetrically-positioned maxillary third molars. Using a split-mouth design, each patient randomly received buccal infiltration of 1.7 ml of 4% lignocaine and 1.7 ml of 4% articaine during two separate appointments. After 15 minutes of anesthetic injection, surgery was performed by the same surgeon using a consistent technique on both sides. Pinprick test pain scores of the buccal and palatal gingiva of the maxillary third molar after 10 minutes and 15 minutes latencies, pain scores during the surgery, the need for supplemental anesthesia, and patients' satisfaction with anesthetic efficiency were recorded. Surgery performed without supplemental anesthesia was categorized as successful. Results: The success rates of 4% lignocaine and 4% articaine (83.34% vs. 86.67%, P = 1.00) were not significantly different. Only 5 cases (4 cases in the articaine group and 1 case in the lignocaine group) reported mild pain and pressure sensation (NRS ≤ 1) on probing at the palatal side after 15 minutes of latency (P = 0.25). The pain scores of maxillary third molar surgery in the two groups were not significantly different (P > 0.05). Moreover, the statistical analysis confirmed the comparable patient satisfaction of two study groups (P = 0.284). Conclusion: This study provides evidence that single buccal infiltrations of 4% lignocaine and 4% articaine have comparable anesthetic efficacy and success rates for impacted maxillary third molar surgery. Both 4% lignocaine and 4% articaine can produce effective palatal anesthesia and pain control using buccal infiltration alone after 15 minutes of latency.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.29-35
• /
• 2017

Background: No study has compared lidocaine with articaine, each at a concentration of 4% and combined with epinephrine. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 4% lidocaine with that of 4% articaine, with a concentration of 1:100,000 epinephrine added to each, in an inferior alveolar nerve block for surgery on impacted lower third molars. Method: This study was conducted at the Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University in Bangkok, Thailand. The randomized, single-blind, comparative split-mouth study was carried out in patients with symmetrically impacted lower third molars, as identified on panoramic radiographs. Each patient underwent surgery for the removal of the lower third molars by the same surgeon under local anesthesia at two separate visits, 3 weeks apart. The onset and duration of local anesthesia, intra-operative pain, surgical duration, and number of additional anesthetics administered were recorded. Results: The subjective and objective onset of action for the local anesthetics showed statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). However, the intra-operative pain, surgical duration, duration of local anesthesia, and number of additional anesthetics administered did not show statistically significant differences. Conclusion: The use of 4% articaine for the inferior alveolar nerve block was clinically more effective in the onset of subjective and objective anesthesia as compared with the use of 4% lidocaine. Based on the pain scores from the visual analogue scale, 4% lidocaine provided more analgesia during the procedure, and patients noted less intra-operative pain than with 4% articaine; however, the difference was not clinically significant.

• Journal of The Korean Dental Society of Anesthesiology
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.1-6
• /
• 2010

Background: Articaine, commercially available in South Korea from 2004, is widely being used for dental treatments. In the surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars, one of the most common procedures in oral and maxillofacial surgery, the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine, both with 1：100,000 epinephrine, was compared. Methods: A randomized double-blind clinical trial was conducted of 80 patients for bilateral surgical extraction of mandibular third molars with informed consents. One operator carried out the routine surgical procedures using local anesthetic 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine with the same concentration of vasoconstrictor. Latency, duration of anesthesia and the amount of anesthetic solution were recorded. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the intraoperative pain. Results: The pain VAS scores reported similar anesthetic effect with both local anesthetics. Not in the latency of anesthesia and the amount of anesthetic solution, statistically significant difference was found in the mean duration of anesthesia. Conclusions: It was concluded that 4% articaine could offer better or at least the same clinical feasibility compared to 2% lidocaine, particularly in terms of the duration of the local anesthesia for common dental treatments.