OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine (both with 1:100,000 epinephrine) for buccal infiltration in patients experiencing irreversible pulpitis in maxillary posterior teeth. STUDY DESIGN:Forty patients with irreversible pulpitis in first premolar or first molar were divided into 4 study groups and received buccal infiltration of either 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine in a double-blind manner. Endodontic access was begun 5 minutes after solution deposition. Success was defined as no or mild discomfort (VAS recordings) during the endodontic procedure. RESULTS: The success rate for maxillary buccal infiltration to produce pulpal anesthesia using articaine was 100% in first premolar and first molar, and for the lidocaine solution, success rate was 80% in first premolar and 30% in first molar. There was high significant difference between the articaine and lidocaine solutions (ANOVA; P < .001). CONCLUSION: The efficacy of 4% articaine was superior to 2% lidocaine for maxillary buccal infiltration in posterior teeth.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine (both with 1:100,000 epinephrine) for buccal infiltration in patients experiencing irreversible pulpitis in maxillary posterior teeth. STUDY DESIGN: Forty patients with irreversible pulpitis in first premolar or first molar were divided into 4 study groups and received buccal infiltration of either 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine in a double-blind manner. Endodontic access was begun 5 minutes after solution deposition. Success was defined as no or mild discomfort (VAS recordings) during the endodontic procedure. RESULTS: The success rate for maxillary buccal infiltration to produce pulpal anesthesia using articaine was 100% in first premolar and first molar, and for the lidocaine solution, success rate was 80% in first premolar and 30% in first molar. There was high significant difference between the articaine and lidocaine solutions (ANOVA; P < .001). CONCLUSION: The efficacy of 4% articaine was superior to 2% lidocaine for maxillary buccal infiltration in posterior teeth.
Authors: N Martínez-Rodríguez; C Barona-Dorado; M Martín-Arés; J Cortés-Bretón-Brinkman; J-M Martínez-González Journal: Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal Date: 2012-03-01