P W Kämmerer1, D Schneider2, V Palarie3, E Schiegnitz4, M Daubländer5. 1. Department of Oral, Maxillofacial and Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Germany. peer.kaemmerer@gmx.de. 2. HELIOS Clinics, Schwerin, Germany. 3. Laboratory of Tissue Engineering, State University of Medicine and Pharmacy "N. Testemitanu", Chisinau, Moldova. 4. Department of Oral, Maxillofacial and Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany. 5. Department of Oral Surgery, University Medical Centre Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this clinical prospective, randomized, double-blind trial was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 2 % articaine and 4 % articaine in inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia for extraction of mandibular teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 95 patients, 105 lower molar and premolar teeth were extracted after intraoral inferior alveolar nerve block. In 53 cases, 2 % articaine (group I) and, in 52 cases, 4 % articaine (group II) was administered. The primary objective was to analyze the differences of anesthetic effects between the two groups (complete/sufficient vs. insufficient/none). Furthermore, differences in pulpal anesthesia (onset and depth, examined with pulp vitality tester (min)), as well as in length of soft tissue anesthesia (min), were evaluated. Additionally, the need of a second injection, pain while injecting (numeric rating scale (NRS)), pain during treatment (NRS), pain after treatment (NRS), and other possible complications (excessive pain, bleeding events, prolonged deafness) were analyzed. RESULTS: Anesthesia was sufficient for dental extractions in both groups without significant differences (p = 0.201). The onset of anesthesia did not differ significantly (p = 0.297). A significantly shorter duration of soft tissue anesthesia was seen in group I (2.9 vs. 4 h; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the need for a second injection (p = 0.359), in injection pain (p = 0.386), as well as in pain during (p = 0.287) or after treatment (p = 0.121). In both groups, no complications were seen. CONCLUSIONS: The local anesthetic effect of the 4 % articaine solution is not significantly better when compared to 2 % articaine. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: For mandibular tooth extraction, articaine 2 % may be used as alternative as well.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this clinical prospective, randomized, double-blind trial was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 2 % articaine and 4 % articaine in inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia for extraction of mandibular teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 95 patients, 105 lower molar and premolar teeth were extracted after intraoral inferior alveolar nerve block. In 53 cases, 2 % articaine (group I) and, in 52 cases, 4 % articaine (group II) was administered. The primary objective was to analyze the differences of anesthetic effects between the two groups (complete/sufficient vs. insufficient/none). Furthermore, differences in pulpal anesthesia (onset and depth, examined with pulp vitality tester (min)), as well as in length of soft tissue anesthesia (min), were evaluated. Additionally, the need of a second injection, pain while injecting (numeric rating scale (NRS)), pain during treatment (NRS), pain after treatment (NRS), and other possible complications (excessive pain, bleeding events, prolonged deafness) were analyzed. RESULTS: Anesthesia was sufficient for dental extractions in both groups without significant differences (p = 0.201). The onset of anesthesia did not differ significantly (p = 0.297). A significantly shorter duration of soft tissue anesthesia was seen in group I (2.9 vs. 4 h; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the need for a second injection (p = 0.359), in injection pain (p = 0.386), as well as in pain during (p = 0.287) or after treatment (p = 0.121). In both groups, no complications were seen. CONCLUSIONS: The local anesthetic effect of the 4 % articaine solution is not significantly better when compared to 2 % articaine. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: For mandibular tooth extraction, articaine 2 % may be used as alternative as well.
Authors: Carlos F Santos; 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 Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: Mohammad Abdulwahab; Sean Boynes; Paul Moore; Shahrooz Seifikar; Abdulaziz Al-Jazzaf; Abdullah Alshuraidah; Jayme Zovko; John Close Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: P W Kämmerer; E Schiegnitz; T von Haussen; N Shabazfar; P Kämmerer; B Willershausen; B Al-Nawas; M Daubländer Journal: Eur J Dent Educ Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 2.355
Authors: Jean-Pierre T F Ho; Tom C T van Riet; Youssef Afrian; Kevin T H Chin Jen Sem; René Spijker; Jan de Lange; Jerome A Lindeboom Journal: J Dent Anesth Pain Med Date: 2021-11-26