Klinger Souza Amorim1, Vanessa Tavares Silva Fontes2, Anne Caroline Gercina1, Francisco Carlos Groppo1, Liane Maciel Almeida Souza3. 1. Pharmacology, Anesthesiology and Therapeutics Department, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, 901 Limeira Avenue, Piracicaba, São Paulo, 13414-903, Brazil. 2. Oral surgery and anesthesiology area of Dentistry Department, Federal University of Sergipe, St Cláudio Batista, Cidade Nova, Aracaju, Sergipe, 49060-108, Brazil. vanessa.tavares.se@gmail.com. 3. Oral surgery and anesthesiology area of Dentistry Department, Federal University of Sergipe, St Cláudio Batista, Cidade Nova, Aracaju, Sergipe, 49060-108, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This randomized, triple-blind, crossover clinical trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy, onset, length of pulp and soft tissue anesthesia, and pain during injection of 2% buffered articaine and 4% non-buffered articaine solutions. METHODS: Each volunteer received two maxillary supraperiosteal anesthesia infiltrations in canine area. The infiltrations were performed at two different sessions using a different local anesthetic solution for each session, and the anesthetic injection speed was always 1 mL/min. The assessment of the onset and length of pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia was performed with the pulp electrical test "pulp tester" and the esthesiometer kit, respectively. Volunteers marked pain during injection on a visual analog scale (VAS). The anesthetics solutions pH was evaluated through the pH meter equipment. RESULTS: There was no difference between the two anesthetic solutions (onset of soft tissue anesthesia, p = 0.5386; length of soft tissue anesthesia, p = 0.718; onset of pulpal anesthesia, p = 0.747; length of pulpal anesthesia, p = 0.375), except for pain during the injection which was lower when buffered 2% articaine was used (p = 0.001) and the pH. The pH analysis revealed that the solutions differed from one another (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The 2% buffered articaine solution provided the same anesthetic properties then 4% unbuffered articaine with a great reduction in pain during injection. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The possibility of use 2% buffered articaine solution instead of 4% articaine maintaining the same anesthetic properties with a great reduction in pain during injection and half of the anesthetic salt concentration.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This randomized, triple-blind, crossover clinical trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy, onset, length of pulp and soft tissue anesthesia, and pain during injection of 2% buffered articaine and 4% non-buffered articaine solutions. METHODS: Each volunteer received two maxillary supraperiosteal anesthesia infiltrations in canine area. The infiltrations were performed at two different sessions using a different local anesthetic solution for each session, and the anesthetic injection speed was always 1 mL/min. The assessment of the onset and length of pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia was performed with the pulp electrical test "pulp tester" and the esthesiometer kit, respectively. Volunteers marked pain during injection on a visual analog scale (VAS). The anesthetics solutions pH was evaluated through the pH meter equipment. RESULTS: There was no difference between the two anesthetic solutions (onset of soft tissue anesthesia, p = 0.5386; length of soft tissue anesthesia, p = 0.718; onset of pulpal anesthesia, p = 0.747; length of pulpal anesthesia, p = 0.375), except for pain during the injection which was lower when buffered 2% articaine was used (p = 0.001) and the pH. The pH analysis revealed that the solutions differed from one another (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The 2% buffered articaine solution provided the same anesthetic properties then 4% unbuffered articaine with a great reduction in pain during injection. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The possibility of use 2% buffered articaine solution instead of 4% articaine maintaining the same anesthetic properties with a great reduction in pain during injection and half of the anesthetic salt concentration.
Entities:
Keywords:
Articaine; Buccal infiltration; Buffering; Local anesthetic; Pain
Authors: Victor T Warren; Anson G Fisher; Eric M Rivera; Pooja T Saha; Blake Turner; Glenn Reside; Ceib Phillips; Raymond P White Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: M Shyamala; C Ramesh; V Yuvaraj; V Suresh; R SathyaNarayanan; T S Balaji; M Neil Dominic; B Nithin Joseph Jude Journal: J Maxillofac Oral Surg Date: 2015-05-29
Authors: James A Phero; Victor T Warren; Anson G Fisher; Eric M Rivera; Pooja T Saha; Glenn Reside; Ceib Phillips; Raymond P White Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2017-03-25 Impact factor: 1.895