Literature DB >> 18022467

Epinephrine concentration (1:100,000 or 1:200,000) does not affect the clinical efficacy of 4% articaine for lower third molar removal: a double-blind, randomized, crossover study.

Carlos F Santos1, Karin C S Modena, Fernando P M Giglio, Vivien T Sakai, Adriana M Calvo, Bella L Colombini, Carla R Sipert, Thiago J Dionísio, Flávio A C Faria, Alceu S Trindade, José R P Lauris.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study compared the use of 4% articaine in association with 1:100,000 (10 mug/mL; A100) or 1:200,000 (5 mug/mL; A200) epinephrine in lower third molar removal. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty healthy volunteers underwent removal of symmetrically positioned lower third molars, in 2 separate appointments, under local anesthesia with either A100 or A200, in a double-blind, randomized, and crossed manner. Latency, duration of postoperative analgesia, duration of anesthetic action on soft tissues, intraoperative bleeding, and hemodynamic parameters were evaluated.
RESULTS: A100 and A200 presented very similar latency (1.64 +/- 0.08 and 1.58 +/- 0.08 minutes, respectively; P > .05). Identical volumes of both anesthetic solutions were used: 2.7 mL = 108 mg of articaine plus 27 mug (A100) or 13.5 mug (A200) of epinephrine. The 2 solutions provided similar duration of postoperative analgesia regardless of bone removal (around 200 minutes; P > .05). The 2 solutions also had a similar duration of anesthetic action on soft tissues (around 250 minutes; P > .05). The surgeon's rating of intraoperative bleeding was considered very close to minimal. Transient changes in hemodynamic parameters were observed, but these were neither clinically significant nor attributable to the type of anesthetic used (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: An epinephrine concentration of 1:100,000 or 1:200,000 in 4% articaine solution does not affect the clinical efficacy of this local anesthetic. It is possible to successfully use the 4% articaine formulation with a lower concentration of epinephrine (1:200,000 or 5 mug/mL) for lower third molar extraction with or without bone removal.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18022467     DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2007.04.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg        ISSN: 0278-2391            Impact factor:   1.895


  25 in total

1.  Comparative clinical evaluation of different epinephrine concentrations in 4% articaine for dental local infiltration anesthesia.

Authors:  P W Kämmerer; J Seeling; A Alshihri; M Daubländer
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  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

3.  Hemodynamic changes associated with a novel concentration of lidocaine HCl for impacted lower third molar surgery.

Authors:  Bushara Ping; Sirichai Kiattavorncharoen; Callum Durward; Puthavy Im; Chavengkiat Saengsirinavin; Natthamet Wongsirichat
Journal:  J Dent Anesth Pain Med       Date:  2015-09-30

4.  Extraction of mandibular premolars and molars: comparison between local infiltration via pressure syringe and inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia.

Authors:  Daniel G E Thiem; Florian Schnaith; Caroline M E Van Aken; Anne Köntges; Vinay V Kumar; Bilal Al-Nawas; Peer W Kämmerer
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  Infiltrative local anesthesia with articaine is equally as effective as inferior alveolar nerve block with lidocaine for the removal of erupted molars.

Authors:  J Venkat Narayanan; Prashanthi Gurram; Radhika Krishnan; Veerabahu Muthusubramanian; V Sadesh Kannan
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2017-05-25

6.  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

7.  Comparison of anesthetic efficacy of 2 and 4 % articaine in inferior alveolar nerve block for tooth extraction-a double-blinded randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  P W Kämmerer; D Schneider; V Palarie; E Schiegnitz; M Daubländer
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-03-28       Impact factor: 3.573

8.  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

9.  Effectiveness of anesthetic solutions for pain control in lower third molar extraction surgeries: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Marco Tulio Rossi; Murilo Navarro de Oliveira; Maria Tereza Campos Vidigal; Walbert de Andrade Vieira; Cristiano Elias Figueiredo; Cauane Blumenberg; Vinicius Lima de Almeida; Luiz Renato Paranhos; Luciana Butini Oliveira; Walter Luiz Siqueira; Rui Barbosa de Brito Júnior
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2020-11-08       Impact factor: 3.573

10.  Comparing Articaine brands: A randomized non-inferiority controlled trial.

Authors:  D Arboleda-Toro; L Toro; Y A Osorio-Osorno; L Castrillon-Pino; N M V Florez-Zapata
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2021-06-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.