AIM: To compare the efficacy of 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine both with 1:100,000 adrenaline in anaesthetising the pulps of mandibular incisors. METHODS:Thirty-one healthy adult volunteers received the following local anaesthetic regimens adjacent to a mandibular central incisor: 1) buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL lidocaine plus dummy lingual injection (LB), 2) buccal plus lingual infiltrations of 0.9 mL lidocaine (LBL), 3) buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL articaine plus dummy lingual injection (AB), 4) buccal plus lingual infiltrations of 0.9 mL articaine (ABL). Pulp sensitivities of the central incisor and contralateral lateral incisor were assessed electronically. Anaesthetic efficacy was determined by two methods: 1) Recording the number of episodes with no responses to maximal electronic pulp tester stimulation during the course of the study period, 2) recording the number of volunteers with no response to maximal pulp tester stimulation within 15 min and maintained for 45 min (defined as sustained anaesthesia). Data were analysed by McNemar, chi-square, Mann-Whitney and paired t-tests. RESULTS: For both test teeth, the number of episodes of no sensation on maximal stimulation was significantly greater after articaine than lidocaine for both techniques. The split buccal plus lingual dose was more effective than the buccal injection alone for both solutions (p <0.001). 4% articaine was more effective than 2% lidocaine when comparing sustained anaesthesia in both teeth for each technique (p <0.001), however, there was no difference in sustained anaesthesia between techniques for either tooth or solution. CONCLUSIONS: 4% articaine was more effective than 2% lidocaine (both with 1:100,000 adrenaline) in anaesthetising the pulps of lower incisor teeth after buccal or buccal plus lingual infiltrations.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To compare the efficacy of 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine both with 1:100,000 adrenaline in anaesthetising the pulps of mandibular incisors. METHODS: Thirty-one healthy adult volunteers received the following local anaesthetic regimens adjacent to a mandibular central incisor: 1) buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL lidocaine plus dummy lingual injection (LB), 2) buccal plus lingual infiltrations of 0.9 mL lidocaine (LBL), 3) buccal infiltration of 1.8 mL articaine plus dummy lingual injection (AB), 4) buccal plus lingual infiltrations of 0.9 mL articaine (ABL). Pulp sensitivities of the central incisor and contralateral lateral incisor were assessed electronically. Anaesthetic efficacy was determined by two methods: 1) Recording the number of episodes with no responses to maximal electronic pulp tester stimulation during the course of the study period, 2) recording the number of volunteers with no response to maximal pulp tester stimulation within 15 min and maintained for 45 min (defined as sustained anaesthesia). Data were analysed by McNemar, chi-square, Mann-Whitney and paired t-tests. RESULTS: For both test teeth, the number of episodes of no sensation on maximal stimulation was significantly greater after articaine than lidocaine for both techniques. The split buccal plus lingual dose was more effective than the buccal injection alone for both solutions (p <0.001). 4% articaine was more effective than 2% lidocaine when comparing sustained anaesthesia in both teeth for each technique (p <0.001), however, there was no difference in sustained anaesthesia between techniques for either tooth or solution. CONCLUSIONS: 4% articaine was more effective than 2% lidocaine (both with 1:100,000 adrenaline) in anaesthetising the pulps of lower incisor teeth after buccal or buccal plus lingual infiltrations.
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