Omer Waleed Majid1, Aws Mahmood Ahmed2. 1. Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq. Electronic address: omerwaleedmajid@gmail.com. 2. Assistant Lecturer, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the anesthetic adequacy of 4% articaine 1.8 mL versus 2% lidocaine 3.6 mL without palatal injection compared with the standard technique for the extraction of maxillary molar teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial included patients requiring extraction of 1 maxillary molar under local anesthesia. Patients were randomly distributed into 1 of 3 groups: group A received 4% articaine 1.8 mL as a buccal injection and 0.2 mL as a palatal injection, group B received 4% articaine 1.8 mL plus normal saline 0.2 mL as a palatal injection, and group C received 2% lidocaine 3.6 mL plus normal saline 0.2 mL as a palatal injection. Pain was measured during injection, 8 minutes afterward, and during extraction using a visual analog scale. Initial palatal anesthesia and patients' satisfaction were measured using a 5-score verbal rating scale. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, analysis of variance, and Pearson χ2 test. Differences with a P value less than .05 were considered significant. RESULTS:Eighty-four patients were included in the study. The average pain of injection was comparable among all study groups (P = .933). Pain during extraction in the articaine group was significantly less than that experienced in the placebo groups (P < .001), although the differences between placebo groups were insignificant. Satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the articaine group compared with the placebo groups (P < .001), with comparable results between placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although the anesthetic effects of single placebo-controlled buccal injections of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine were comparable, the level of anesthetic adequacy was statistically less than that achieved by 4% articaine given by the standard technique. These results do not justify the buccal and non-palatal infiltration of articaine or lidocaine as an effective alternative to the standard technique in the extraction of maxillary molar teeth.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the anesthetic adequacy of 4% articaine 1.8 mL versus 2% lidocaine 3.6 mL without palatal injection compared with the standard technique for the extraction of maxillary molar teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial included patients requiring extraction of 1 maxillary molar under local anesthesia. Patients were randomly distributed into 1 of 3 groups: group A received 4% articaine 1.8 mL as a buccal injection and 0.2 mL as a palatal injection, group B received 4% articaine 1.8 mL plus normal saline 0.2 mL as a palatal injection, and group C received 2% lidocaine 3.6 mL plus normal saline 0.2 mL as a palatal injection. Pain was measured during injection, 8 minutes afterward, and during extraction using a visual analog scale. Initial palatal anesthesia and patients' satisfaction were measured using a 5-score verbal rating scale. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, analysis of variance, and Pearson χ2 test. Differences with a P value less than .05 were considered significant. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were included in the study. The average pain of injection was comparable among all study groups (P = .933). Pain during extraction in the articaine group was significantly less than that experienced in the placebo groups (P < .001), although the differences between placebo groups were insignificant. Satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the articaine group compared with the placebo groups (P < .001), with comparable results between placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although the anesthetic effects of single placebo-controlled buccal injections of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine were comparable, the level of anesthetic adequacy was statistically less than that achieved by 4% articaine given by the standard technique. These results do not justify the buccal and non-palatal infiltration of articaine or lidocaine as an effective alternative to the standard technique in the extraction of maxillary molar teeth.