Search

The present study was designed to compare the efficiency of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 and 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 in providing adequate anaesthesia for maxillary molar extraction with buccal infiltration only. In this randomised, double-blind clinical trial, 139 patients who needed maxillary molars extracting were enrolled. Individuals were randomly divided into two groups of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 treated by buccal infiltration without palatal injection and 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 treated with the same method. Then, teeth were extracted and the pain assessed. During the extraction of teeth, 90.63% of patients in the lidocaine-treated group and 36% of patients in the articaine-treated group experienced pain (p

It is hard to provide adequate anaesthesia by infiltration of lidocaine into the mandible because of the thick buccal cortex. An inferior alveolar nerve block is often used but has a high failure rate, which has led research workers to look for an anaesthetic agent that will anaesthetise the lower teeth by buccal infiltration alone. We have assessed the efficacy of buccal infiltration anaesthesia with articaine by designing a double-blind controlled clinical trial in 133 patients who required extraction of mandibular molars. They were randomly divided into two groups and given infiltration anaesthesia with either 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine by a single injection deep into the mucobuccal fold at the site of the tooth. After five minutes the mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual sides of the tooth were probed. Pain at this time or later during dissection of soft tissue by periosteal elevator was considered as failure, and an inferior alveolar nerve block was given. The amount of pain, and the number of patients who developed pain, were significantly greater in the group given 2% lidocaine (p