Literature DB >> 17274713

Hemostatic and anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine HCl with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine when administered intraorally for periodontal surgery.

Paul A Moore1, Bruce Doll, Robert A Delie, Elliot V Hersh, Jonathan Korostoff, Sharon Johnson, J Max Goodson, Stephen Halem, Michael Palys, Juliana S Leonel, Vitoldo A Kozlowski, Carrie Peterson, Matthew Hutcheson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The objective of this double-masked, randomized, multicenter crossover study was to compare the efficacy of 4% articaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine (A100) to 4% articaine HCl with 1:200,000 epinephrine (A200) for providing effective local anesthesia and hemostasis for periodontal surgery.
METHODS: Anesthetic efficacy was based on patient self-report and lack of need for reinjection during the surgical procedures. Hemostatic properties of the formulations were compared using ratings of the surgeons' ability to visualize the surgical field and expectation for bleeding. The volume of blood collected during each surgical session also was measured and compared.
RESULTS: Forty-two adult subjects (26 males and 16 females, mean age 46.3 +/- 9.7 years) diagnosed with moderate to severe periodontal disease requiring local anesthesia for matched bilateral periodontal surgery were enrolled and completed the study. Subjects reported satisfactory surgical anesthesia following the A100 and A200 formulations; no supplemental local anesthesia was administered. Significant differences between the A100 and A200 treatments were found for the surgeons' ability to visualize the surgical field (rated as clear 83.3% of the time with A100 and 59.5% of the time with A200; P = 0.008), bleeding expectation (rated as equal to or better than expected 85.7% of the time with A100 and 71.4% of the time with A200; P = 0.034), and volume of blood loss (54.9 +/- 36.0 ml for A100 and 70.2 +/- 53.0 ml for A200; P = 0.018). Sixteen patients experienced 27 mild or moderate adverse events; the most common were postoperative pain (nine patients) and swelling (eight patients). Six adverse events may have been related to treatment. The frequency of adverse events did not vary between formulations.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing periodontal surgery, 4% articaine anesthetic formulations containing epinephrine (1:100,000 or 1:200,000) provided excellent surgical pain control. For patients who can tolerate higher amounts of epinephrine, the 4% articaine 1:100,000 epinephrine formulation had the additional therapeutic advantage of providing better visualization of the surgical field and less bleeding.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17274713     DOI: 10.1902/jop.2007.060314

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Periodontol        ISSN: 0022-3492            Impact factor:   6.993


  12 in total

1.  Clinical use of an epinephrine-reduced (1/400,000) articaine solution in short-time dental routine treatments--a multicenter study.

Authors:  Monika Daubländer; Peer W Kämmerer; Brita Willershausen; Michael Leckel; Hans-Christoph Lauer; Siegmar Buff; Benita Rösl
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2011-08-23       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Local Anesthetic Usage Among Dentists: German and International Data.

Authors:  Frank Halling; Andreas Neff; Thomas Ziebart
Journal:  Anesth Prog       Date:  2021-03-01

3.  Efficacy of 4 % Articaine and 2 % Lidocaine: A clinical study.

Authors:  Deepashri H Kambalimath; R S Dolas; H V Kambalimath; S M Agrawal
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2012-04-05

4.  Comparison of buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with 1 : 100,000 and 1 : 200,000 epinephrine for extraction of maxillary third molars with pericoronitis: a pilot study.

Authors:  José Lacet Lima; Eduardo Dias-Ribeiro; Julierme Ferreira-Rocha; Ramon Soares; Fábio Wildson Gurgel Costa; Song Fan; Eduardo Sant'ana
Journal:  Anesth Prog       Date:  2013

5.  Cardiovascular effect of dental anesthesia with articaine (40 mg with epinefrine 0,5 mg % and 40 mg with epinefrine 1 mg%) versus mepivacaine (30 mg and 20 mg with epinefrine 1 mg%) in medically compromised cardiac patients: a cross-over, randomized, single blinded study.

Authors:  Daniel Torres-Lagares; María-Ángeles Serrera-Figallo; Guillermo Machuca-Portillo; José-Ramón Corcuera-Flores; Carmen Machuca-Portillo; Raquel Castillo-Oyagüe; José-Luis Gutiérrez-Pérez
Journal:  Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal       Date:  2012-07-01

6.  Comparative split-mouth study of the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 0.5% bupivacaine in impacted mandibular third molar extraction.

Authors:  Hilario Pellicer-Chover; Juan Cervera-Ballester; José M Sanchis-Bielsa; María A Peñarrocha-Diago; Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago; Berta García-Mira
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2013-04-01

7.  Comparing the outcomes of incisions made by colorado microdissection needle, electrosurgery tip, and surgical blade during periodontal surgery: A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Rampalli Viswa Chandra; Boya Savitharani; Aileni Amarender Reddy
Journal:  J Indian Soc Periodontol       Date:  2016 Nov-Dec

Review 8.  Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia.

Authors:  Geoffrey St George; Alyn Morgan; John Meechan; David R Moles; Ian Needleman; Yuan-Ling Ng; Aviva Petrie
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-07-10

9.  Hemodynamic changes following injection of local anesthetics with different concentrations of epinephrine during simple tooth extraction: A prospective randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Nedal Abu-Mostafa; Fatimah Al-Showaikhat; Fatimah Al-Shubbar; Kawther Al-Zawad; Fatimah Al-Zawad
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2015-10-01

10.  Anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lignocaine during the surgical removal of the third molar: A comparative prospective study.

Authors:  Nikil Kumar Jain; Reena Rachel John
Journal:  Anesth Essays Res       Date:  2016 May-Aug
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.