Comparison of diffusion capacity and efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine on impacted maxillary third molars extraction

Admin Dental Press

Edition V06N01 | Year 2020 | Editorial Original Article | Pages 69 to 75

GUSTAVO MASCARENHAS, DANIELA MASCARENHAS, DARCENY ZANETTA BARBOSA, HELVÉCIO MARANGON Jr, RAFAEL MARTINS AFONSO PEREIRA, PATRICIA PEREIRA

Introduction: Anesthetic solutions have their own characteristics regarding properties such as latency, potency, and duration of action. Many authors have demonstrated the superiority of diffusion of 4% articaine solutions, although there is controversy in the scientific literature about this discussion. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the ability to induce palatal mucosa anesthesia and the anesthetic efficacy after superior alveolar posterior nerve block of two anesthetic solutions: 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 and 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000. Methods: This original experiment is a cross-sectional, double-blind, randomized study of eighteen healthy volunteers, aged 14 to 26 years, with impacted maxillary third molar ex- traction indications. The diffusion ability and the effica- cy of anesthetic solutions were verified by the 11-point Box Scale, and the anxiety degree was evaluated with the Corah Dental Anxiety Scale. Results: Results showed that in healthy patients, both anesthetic solutions had the same diffusion to palatal mucosa and, presented similar clinical behavior. Conclusion: Both tested solutions showed similar diffusion capacity and anesthetic efficacy, proving to be equally suitable for use in extraction of impacted maxillary third molars.

Lidocaine, Articaine, Anesthetics, Pain,

Mascarenhas G, Mascarenhas D, Zanetta-Barbosa D, Marangon-Jr H, Pereira RMA, Pereira P. Comparison of diffusion capacity and efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine on impacted maxillary third molars extraction. J Braz Coll Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Jan-Apr;6(1):69-75.

Related articles