Anesthetic Efficacy of Articaine and Lidocaine in Lower Molars With Irreversible Pulpits

Overview

The aim of this study was to verify the effectiveness of an anesthetic called articaine for dental treatment, comparing it with an anesthetic commonly used in dental clinic: lidocaine. Two types of local anesthesia (oral injection) in accordance with the solution used were performed. For patients anesthetized with articaine, an injection of anesthesia close to the tooth to be treated was used. For the anesthetic lidocaine an injection on the cheek at the bottom of the mouth was made. Differences between both techniques are mainly regarding the area of numbness. In the injection with articaine only a small part of the lip and the tooth was anesthetized. With lidocaine injection, the lower region of the entire side of the tooth and half of the tongue on the same side was numbed. The treatment was electronic randomized and there was equal chance to one or another treatment. The investigators are studying this new form of anesthesia (near the tooth that was treated) to see if it can numb the tooth to an emergency treatment, if it really decreases the feeling of numbness and discomfort during the service. Patients receiving articaine were submitted to cone beam exam at no cost.

Aim: This randomized clinical trial compared the anesthetic efficacy of buccal infiltration (BI) with 4% articaine (AR) and inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 2% lidocaine (LI), both with 1:100,000 epinephrine, in symptomatic mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis. Likewise, we compared the efficacy of the primary infiltration (BI or IANB) with one supplemental injection (intraligamentary infiltration with articaine for AR and BI with articaine for LI). The influences of buccal cortical bone thickness and root distances to buccal cortical bone on articaine performance (AR) were also evaluated using cone-beam tomography. methodology: Volunteers presenting symptomatic mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis were randomly divided into two groups (30 for AR and 20 for LI). Success was recorded when complete pain-free treatment was achieved after primary injection or when one supplemental injection was needed for emergency endodontic procedures.