International Journal of Experimental Dental Science

Register      Login

VOLUME 5 , ISSUE 1 ( January-June, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

To compare Clinical and Anesthetic Efficacy of 4% Articaine, 0.5% Bupivacaine, and 2% Lignocaine in Maxillary Extractions

Isha Dilipsingh Bagga, Kruti A Shah, Naman Rajeshkumar Rao, Pratik Jain

Citation Information : Bagga ID, Shah KA, Rao NR, Jain P. To compare Clinical and Anesthetic Efficacy of 4% Articaine, 0.5% Bupivacaine, and 2% Lignocaine in Maxillary Extractions. Int J Experiment Dent Sci 2016; 5 (1):34-39.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10029-1120

Published Online: 01-06-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Materials and methods

The study was conducted in Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, on 50 systemically healthy subjects (18–75 years) requiring multiple maxillary extractions. Patients were labeled into 3 groups (2% lignocaine, 4% articaine, 0.5% bupivacaine using split mouth technique. Parameters includes: Time of anesthetic onset, Duration of postoperative analgesia, Postoperative anesthesia, and visual analog scale (VAS). A volume of 1.8–2 ml of 2% lignocaine or 4% articaine or 0.5% bupivacaine was infiltrated in the buccal vestibule (local infiltration) before extraction.

Results

The results showed that time of onset of action was significantly faster in 4% articaine when compared to 2% lignocaine and 0.5% bupivacaine.

Conclusion

Articaine have being proved to have better potency and efficacy in terms of onset of action and lower pain scores comparison but lignocaine still remained the gold standard local anesthetic agent in Dental practice due to its faster time of onset, less time of anesthesia and cost effectiveness when compared articaine and bupivacaine. Bupivacaine proved more efficient in pain control and remained concentrated for major procedures.

How to cite this article

Bagga ID, Shah KA, Rao NR, Jain P. To compare Clinical and Anesthetic Efficacy of 4% Articaine, 0.5% Bupivacaine, and 2% Lignocaine in Maxillary Extractions. Int J Experiment Dent Sci 2016;5(1):34-39


PDF Share
  1. 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 May 1;17(3):e462-e468.
  2. Efficacy of 4% articaine hydrochloride and 2% lignocaine hydrochloride in the extraction of maxillary premolars for orthodontic reasons. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2011 Jan-Jun;1(1):14-18.
  3. 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 Endon 2008 July 106(1):19-28.
  4. Efficacy of articaine—a new amide local anesthetic. J Am Dent Asoc 2000 May;131(5):635-642.
  5. 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.
  6. Long-acting analgesic or long-acting local anesthetic in controlling immediate postoperative pain after lower third molar surgery. Anesth Prog 1987;34:6-9.
  7. Onset and duration periods of articaine and lidocaine on maxillary infiltration. Quintessence Int 2005;36:197-201.
  8. Articaine hydrochloride: a study of the safety of a new amide local anesthetic. J Am Dent Assoc 2001;132:177-185.
  9. Incidence of local anesthetic-induced neuropathies in Ontario from 1994–1998. J Dent Res 2000; 79:627.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.