Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year
: 2015  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 463--469

A comparative evaluation of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine in mandibular buccal infiltration anesthesia: A clinical study


Sunith Maruthingal1, Dennis Mohan1, Ramesh Kumar Maroli2, Ali Alahmari3, Ahmed Alqahtani3, Mohammed Alsadoon3 
1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Pariyaram Dental College, Academy of Medical Sciences, Pariyaram, Kerala, India
2 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Government Dental College, Calicut, Kerala, India
3 Department of Dental Health, MOH, Alfarabi Colleges, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence Address:
Sunith Maruthingal
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Pariyaram Dental College, Academy of Medical Sciences, Pariyaram - 670 503, Kerala
India

Background: To compare 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine local anesthetics in achieving pulpal anesthesia of the lower first permanent molar teeth objectively, and to assess and compare lip and lingual mucosa numbness subjectively. Materials and Methods: All subjects received 1.7 ml of any one anesthetic in the mucobuccal fold adjacent to mandibular first molar teeth; the same individuals received the second infiltration at least 1 week after the first. Later, comparisons for pulpal anesthesia, lip and lingual mucosa numbness between these two anesthetics solutions were made. Results: Articaine showed significant results with P = 0.006 in achieving pulpal anesthesia objectively, when compared with lidocaine. Articaine also showed very high significant results subjectively with P = 0.0006 in achieving lip numbness, when compared with lidocaine. But the results in achieving lingual mucosa numbness with articaine subjectively was not significant with P = 0.01, when compared with lidocaine. Conclusion: Endodontic and operative treatments are one of the most common oral non-surgical procedures done under local anesthesia. The diversity of anesthetic substances currently available on the market requires dental professionals to assess the drug both by its pharmacokinetic and also by its clinical characteristics during dental treatments. Our study used 4% articaine, which is available in the market, for comparison with 2% lidocaine. Further studies are required to use an equal concentration of solutions to achieve more accurate results.


How to cite this article:
Maruthingal S, Mohan D, Maroli RK, Alahmari A, Alqahtani A, Alsadoon M. A comparative evaluation of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine in mandibular buccal infiltration anesthesia: A clinical study.J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2015;5:463-469


How to cite this URL:
Maruthingal S, Mohan D, Maroli RK, Alahmari A, Alqahtani A, Alsadoon M. A comparative evaluation of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine in mandibular buccal infiltration anesthesia: A clinical study. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent [serial online] 2015 [cited 2020 Dec 3 ];5:463-469
Available from: https://www.jispcd.org/article.asp?issn=2231-0762;year=2015;volume=5;issue=6;spage=463;epage=469;aulast=Maruthingal;type=0