Buccal Infiltration of Different Volumes of Articaine for Extraction.

Overview

This study compares the effectiveness of two different volumes of buccal infiltration of Articaine for the extraction of mandibular posterior teeth. One group receives buccal infiltration of 1.8 ml of 4% Articaine and the other group receives buccal infiltration of 3.6 ml of 4% Articaine.

The most widely and commonly used injection method for the extraction of mandibular posterior teeth is the inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) technique. However, various complications like pain during injection, transient facial nerve paralysis, trismus, hematoma, and paresthesia are associated with the inferior alveolar nerve block technique. Local infiltration technique has been proven as a safer and less painful anesthetic injection technique compared to IANB. Unfortunately, the dense nature of cortical bone in the mandibular posterior region hinders sufficient diffusion of anesthetic solution during infiltration. Thus, to achieve an adequate anesthesia for a painless dental extraction of mandibular posterior teeth by infiltration technique, a strong and effective local anesthetic agent having a deeper penetrating property should be used. Articaine is one of the most widely used local anesthetic agents. It is more potent and has shown more success rate than Lidocaine and Mepivacaine in providing anesthesia in mandibular and maxillary posterior teeth by buccal infiltration diffusibility. This study compares the effectiveness of two different volumes of buccal infiltration of Articaine for the extraction of mandibular posterior teeth.

Conditions

Interventions

Eligibility

Locations (2)

Outcomes

Central Contacts