Acomparative Evaluation of Anaesthetic Effectiveness Of 4 % Articaine ,0.5 % Bupivacaine And 2 % Lignocaine in General Tooth Extraction
Keywords:
Articaine, Bupivacaine, Lignocaine, Anesthesia, Tooth Extraction, Pain ManagementAbstract
Background
Nowadays safe and efficient pain control is essential for today’s dental practice. That randomized controlled study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of
4 % articaine ,0.5 % bupivacaine and 2 % lidocaine for removal of tooth. The local anaesthetic solutions in tooth removal depends on the following points: latency, anaesthetic effectiveness and duration of anaesthetic effect.
Objectives
The objectives of an study are to evaluate the analysis of anesthetic solutions of 4% Articaine, 0.5 % Bupivacaine and 2%Lignoacaine using the Visual analogue scale ( VAS SCALE ).
Study design:
This randomized control study was performed in the oral surgery department from 1/8/2024 to 1/11/2024
The study between 150 patients of both sexes who come to oral surgery department for removal of tooth in the age between 20-60 years.
Materials and methods
The study involved 150 patients of both sexes, aged 20-60 years, who visited the oral surgery department for tooth extraction. Participants were randomly assigned into three groups of 50 patients each. The anesthetic solutions used for the extraction were as follows:
Group A: 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine Group B: 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine Group C: 2% lignocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine
The comparative analysis was conducted to evaluate the onset of anesthesia, duration of pain relief, and overall effectiveness of the different anesthetics used during the extraction process .
Results
The results indicated that 4% articaine was superior to both bupivacaine and lignocaine in terms of efficacy for tooth extraction procedures. Articaine provided quicker onset and longer-lasting anesthesia, making it the preferred choice for routine extractions.
Downloads
References
Comparative Analysis of Anesthetic Efficacy between 4% Articaine and 2% Lignocaine
Bansal SK, Kaura S, Sangha PK, Kaur P, Bahl R, Bansal S. Indian Journal of Dental Sciences. 2018;10:92–97. [Google Scholar]
Evaluation of Anesthetic Effectiveness: 4% Articaine vs. 0.5% Bupivacaine for Lower Molar Extractions Pavan Tenglikar, Abhigyan Manas, Amiya Ranjan Sahoo, Shreedevi Bhoi, Arundhati Singh, Prajakta B Patil, Anuradha B. Edited by: Alexander Muacevic, John R. Adler. [Publication details not fully specified]
A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing the Anesthetic Efficacy of 4% Articaine, 0.5% Bupivacaine, and 2% Lidocaine for Infraorbital Nerve Block International Journal of Advanced Research. July 2022.
Comparative Study of Lignocaine, Ropivacaine, and Bupivacaine for Pain Control During Mandibular Posterior Teeth Extractions Radha Saodekar, Rajashree Gondhalekar, Jayshree Kalamkar. V.Y.W.S. Dental College & Hospital, Amravati, Maharashtra, India. [Publication details not fully specified]
Comparative Study on Anesthetic Efficacy of 4% Articaine vs. 2% Lignocaine in Surgical Removal of Third Molars Jain NK, John RR. Anesthesia Essays and Researches. 2016;10:356–361. DOI: 10.4103/0259-1162.171445. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Efficacy Comparison between 2% Lignocaine and 4% Articaine in Oral Surgery Kumar K, Singh R, Kumar S, Gupta J, Kumar A, Verma A. Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice. 2020;21:1146–1149. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
A Randomized, Single-Blind Comparative Analysis of Local Anesthesia with Two Different Adrenaline Concentrations Managutti A, Prakasam M, Puthanakar N, Menat S, Shah D, Patel H. Journal of International Oral Health. 2015;7:24–27. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Comparison of 0.5% Bupivacaine vs. 4% Articaine for Lower Third Molar Removal: A Crossover Randomized Controlled Trial Sancho-Puchades M, Vílchez-Pérez MÁ, Valmaseda-Castellón E, Paredes-García J, Berini-Aytés L, Gay-Escoda C. Medicina Oral Patología Oral Cirugía Bucal. 2012;17:462–468. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.17628. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
