Literature DB >> 26202994

Efficacy and Safety of 2% and 4% Articaine for Lower Third Molar Surgery.

A M Senes1, A M Calvo1, B L Colombini-Ishikiriama1, P Z Gonçalves1, T J Dionísio1, E Sant'ana1, D T Brozoski1, J R P Lauris1, F A C Faria1, C F Santos2.   

Abstract

This double-blind crossover randomized clinical trial compared the efficacy of 2 concentrations of articaine, 2% (A2) and 4% (A4), with 1:200,000 epinephrine, for lower third molar removal. During 2 separate appointments with either A2 or A4, both similarly positioned lower third molars in 46 volunteers were extracted. The following were evaluated: onset and duration of anesthetic action on soft tissues, intraoperative bleeding, hemodynamic parameters, postoperative analgesia, and mouth opening and wound healing during the 7th postoperative day, along with the incidence, type, and severity of adverse reactions. Nearly identical volumes of both anesthetic solutions were used for each appointment: 3.4 ± 0.9 mL ≈ 68 mg of articaine (A2) and 3.3 ± 0.8 mL ≈ 132 mg of articaine (A4). Statistical analysis indicated no differences in onset or duration of anesthetic action on soft tissues or duration of postoperative analgesia evoked by A2 and A4 anesthetic solutions (P > 0.05). The surgeon's rating of intraoperative bleeding was considered minimal throughout all surgery with both anesthetic solutions. While transient changes in blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation were observed, these factors were clinically insignificant and were uninfluenced by articaine concentration (P > 0.05). No systemic or local adverse reactions were observed in the preoperative and postoperative periods due to A2 or A4, but 1 case of bilateral paresthesia was observed. There were no significant differences between preoperative and postoperative (7th day) values of mouth opening and wound healing whether volunteers received A2 or A4 (P > 0.05). In conclusion, both A2 and A4, administered in equal volumes, were effective and safe during lower third molar surgery, and no significant differences were found between their efficacy and safety (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02457325). © International & American Associations for Dental Research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  epinephrine; hemodynamics; inferior alveolar nerve block; local anesthesia; pain; trismus

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26202994     DOI: 10.1177/0022034515596313

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dent Res        ISSN: 0022-0345            Impact factor:   6.116


  13 in total

1.  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

2.  CYP450 polymorphisms and clinical pharmacogenetics of ibuprofen after lower third molar extraction.

Authors:  Giovana M Weckwerth; Thiago J Dionísio; Yuri M Costa; Bella L Colombini-Ishiquiriama; Gabriela M Oliveira; Elza A Torres; Leonardo R Bonjardim; Adriana M Calvo; Troy Moore; Devin M Absher; Carlos F Santos
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 2.953

3.  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

4.  Efficacy of piroxicam for postoperative pain after lower third molar surgery associated with CYP2C8*3 and CYP2C9.

Authors:  Adriana Maria Calvo; Paulo Zupelari-Gonçalves; Thiago José Dionísio; Daniel Thomas Brozoski; Flávio Augusto Faria; Carlos Ferreira Santos
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2017-07-06       Impact factor: 3.133

5.  Double versus single cartridge of 4% articaine infiltration into the retro-molar area for lower third molar surgery.

Authors:  Kamonpun Sawang; Teeranut Chaiyasamut; Sirichai Kiattavornchareon; Verasak Pairuchvej; Bishwa Prakash Bhattarai; Natthamet Wongsirichat
Journal:  J Dent Anesth Pain Med       Date:  2017-06-29

6.  Comparison of onset anesthesia time and injection discomfort of 4% articaine and 2% mepivacaine during teeth extractions.

Authors:  Giath Gazal; Rashdan Alharbi; Wamiq Musheer Fareed; Esam Omar; Albraa Badr Alolayan; Hassan Al-Zoubi; Ahmad A Alnazzawi
Journal:  Saudi J Anaesth       Date:  2017 Apr-Jun

7.  Efficacy of naproxen with or without esomeprazole for pain and inflammation in patients after bilateral third molar extractions: A double blinded crossover study.

Authors:  G-M Weckwerth; L-F Simoneti; P Zupelari-Gonçalves; A-M Calvo; D-T Brozoski; T-J Dionísio; E-A Torres; J-R-P Lauris; F-A-C Faria; C-F Santos
Journal:  Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal       Date:  2017-01-01

8.  Is Articaine More Potent than Mepivacaine for Use in Oral Surgery?

Authors:  Giath Gazal
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Res       Date:  2018-09-30

9.  Does experienced pain affects local brain volumes? Insights from a clinical acute pain model.

Authors:  Laura Torrecillas-Martínez; Andrés Catena; Francisco O'Valle; Miguel Padial-Molina; Pablo Galindo-Moreno
Journal:  Int J Clin Health Psychol       Date:  2019-03-04

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.