Contemporary Clinical Dentistry
   
  Home | About us | Editorial board | Search
Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Advertise
Instructions | Online submission| Contact us | Subscribe |

 

Login  | Users Online: 1816  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 284-288

A randomized control trial comparing buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with buccal and palatal infiltration of 2% lignocaine for the extraction of maxillary premolar teeth


Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Nair Hospital Dental College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Neelam Noel Andrade
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Nair Hospital Dental College, Room No. 107, A L Nair Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai - 400 008, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_529_18

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: The use of articaine has been claimed to obviate the need for routine palatal local anesthetic injections on account of its better diffusion through soft and hard tissues as compared to other local anesthetic agents. Objective: The objective of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of 4% articaine (with 1:100,000 adrenaline) infiltrated only buccally in the extraction of maxillary premolars for orthodontic reasons. Materials and Methods: A double-blind randomized clinical trial with a split-mouth design, where each patient (n = 100) was part of two groups, was conducted. Experimental Group 1: single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline (Septanest™ with adrenaline 1:100,000 by Septodont). Control Group 2: routine buccal and palatal infiltrations of 2% lignocaine with 1:200,000 adrenaline (Lox™ 2% with adrenaline 1:200,000 by Neon). The parameters studied were time to onset of anesthesia, pain during the extraction procedure (not during the injecting of the local anesthetic), and frequency of extra amount of local anesthetic injected. Results: The difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05) between the two groups with respect to all three parameters. This proves that a single buccal infiltration of articaine can be used as an alternative to lignocaine for the extraction of the maxillary premolar teeth in most of the cases. Conclusion: This proves that a single buccal infiltration of articaine can be used as an alternative to lignocaine for the extraction of the maxillary premolar teeth in most of the cases.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed89    
    Printed3    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded13    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal