Literature DB >> 18420431

A comparison of the clinical anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 0.5% bupivacaine (both with 1:200,000 epinephrine) for lower third molar removal.

Leonardo V L Gregorio1, Fernando P M Giglio, Vivien T Sakai, Karin C S Modena, Bella L Colombini, Adriana M Calvo, Carla R Sipert, Thiago J Dionísio, José R P Lauris, Flávio A C Faria, Alceu S Trindade Junior, Carlos F Santos.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the clinical efficacy of 4% articaine (A200) and 0.5% bupivacaine (B200), both with 1:200,000 epinephrine, for lower third molar removal. STUDY
DESIGN: Fifty patients underwent removal of symmetrically positioned lower third molars, in 2 separate appointments, under local anesthesia either with A200 or B200, in a double-blind, randomized, and crossover manner. Time to onset, duration of postoperative analgesia, duration of anesthetic action on soft tissues, intraoperative bleeding, and hemodynamic parameters were evaluated.
RESULTS: A statistically significant difference between the time to onset of A200 (1.66 +/- 0.13 minutes) and B200 (2.51 +/- 0.21 minutes) was found (P < .05). There was no statistically significant difference in the duration of analgesia, whether the patient was subjected to osteotomy or not, regardless of the local anesthetic used (3 to 4 hours; P > .05). However, when patients received B200 they experienced a statistically significant longer period of anesthesia on the soft tissues as compared with when they had received A200 (around 5 hours and 4 hours, respectively, P < .05). The surgeon's rating of intraoperative bleeding was considered very close to minimal for both anesthetics. In the surgeries with osteotomy, the comparison between A200 and B200 showed statistically significant differences in the diastolic (64 mm Hg and 68 mm Hg, respectively, P = .001) and mean arterial pressure (86 mm Hg and 89 mm Hg, respectively, P = .031) when data from all the surgical phases were pooled. Additionally, the mouth opening at the suture removal was statistically different for A200 and B200 solutions (91.90% +/- 3.00% and 88.57% +/- 2.38% of the preoperative measure, respectively) when surgeries required bone removal (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with 0.5% bupivacaine, 4% articaine (both with 1:200,000 epinephrine) provided a shorter time to onset and comparable hemostasis and postoperative pain control with a shorter duration of soft tissue anesthesia in lower third molar removal.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18420431     DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.11.024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod        ISSN: 1079-2104


  23 in total

1.  Success rates of the first inferior alveolar nerve block administered by dental practitioners.

Authors:  Yutthasak Kriangcherdsak; Somchart Raucharernporn; Teeranut Chaiyasamut; Natthamet Wongsirichat
Journal:  J Dent Anesth Pain Med       Date:  2016-06-30

2.  Postoperative pain after bupivacaine supplementation in mandibular third molar surgery: splint-mouth randomized double blind controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Ana Mara Morais de Souza; Anna Carolina Ratto Tempestini Horliana; José Leonardo Simone; Waldyr Antonio Jorge; Isabel Peixoto Tortamano
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2014-10-23

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.  Local anaesthesia for surgical extraction of mandibular third molars: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Fan Yang; Yuxuan Gao; Lan Zhang; Bo Zheng; Liu Wang; Huan Sun; Dingming Huang
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2020-08-24       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  Effect of long acting local anesthetic on postoperative pain in teeth with irreversible pulpitis: Randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Ahmed Al-Kahtani
Journal:  Saudi Pharm J       Date:  2013-01-26       Impact factor: 4.330

6.  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

7.  Bupivacaine 0.5% versus articaine 4% for the removal of lower third molars. A crossover randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Manuel Sancho-Puchades; Miguel-Ángel Vílchez-Pérez; Eduard Valmaseda-Castellón; Jordi Paredes-García; Leonardo Berini-Aytés; Cosme Gay-Escoda
Journal:  Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal       Date:  2012-05-01

8.  A prospective, randomized, triple-blind comparison of articaine and bupivacaine for maxillary infiltrations.

Authors:  M-A Vílchez-Pérez; M Sancho-Puchades; E Valmaseda-Castellón; J Paredes-García; L Berini-Aytés; C Gay-Escoda
Journal:  Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal       Date:  2012-03-01

9.  4% Articaine and 2% Lignocaine for Surgical Removal of Third Molar by Mandibular Nerve Block: A Randomized Clinical Trial for Efficacy and Safety.

Authors:  Shruthi Saralaya; Sahana B Adirajaiah; Venkatesh Anehosur
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2018-04-03

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.