A prospective study to assess the efficacy of 4% articaine, 0.5% bupivacaine and 2% lignocaine using a single buccal supraperiosteal injection for maxillary tooth extraction

• Main Authors: Deepak Chandrasekaran (Author), Ravindran Chinnaswami (Author), K Shanthi (Author), A Emmanuel Dhiravia Sargunam (Author), K Santhosh Kumar (Author), Tharini Satheesh (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2021-01-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 0975-7406; 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_659_20
• Keywords: articaine; local infiltration; tooth extraction; Pharmacy and materia medica; RS1-441; Analytical chemistry; QD71-142
• Source: Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences, Vol 13, Iss 5, Pp 721-724 (2021)

Introduction: The aim of this study was to demonstrate if articaine hydrochloride administered alone as a single buccal infiltration in maxillary tooth extraction can provide adequate palatal anesthesia as compared to buccal and palatal injection using lidocaine and bupivacaine. Materials and Methods: A prospective double-blinded trial was conducted on 150 patients who required maxillary tooth extraction. The patients were divided into three different groups consisting of 50 patients each. Each group was administered with 4% articaine into buccal vestibular mucosa of the tooth to be extracted, 2% lignocaine and 0.5% bupivacaine was injected into buccal and palatal side of the tooth to be extracted, respectively. Following the tooth extraction, all patients were asked to complete a 10-score Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and 5-score facial pain scale (FPS) to assess the pain on extraction. Results: According to the VAS and FPS scores, the pain on extraction between buccal infiltration of articaine and the routine buccal and palatal infiltration of lignocaine was statistically significant. Conclusion: The routine use of a palatal injection for extraction of maxillary teeth may not be required when articaine is used as a local anesthetic solution.