A comparison of equivalent doses of lidocaine and articaine in maxillary posterior tooth extractions: case series.

OBJECTIVES

Local anaesthesia is the standard of care during dental extractions. With the advent of newer local anesthetic agents, it is often difficult for the clinician to decide which agent would be most efficacious in a given clinical scenario. This study assessed the efficacy of equal-milligram doses of lidocaine and articaine in achieving surgical anaesthesia of maxillary posterior teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This case-series evaluated a total of 41 patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis in a maxillary posterior tooth. Patients randomly received an infiltration of either 3.6 mL (72 mg) 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 1.8 mL (72 mg) 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in the buccal fold and palatal soft tissue adjacent to the tooth. After 10 minutes, initial anaesthesia of the tooth was assessed by introducing a sterile 27-gauge needle into the gingival tissue adjacent to the tooth, followed by relief of the gingival cuff. Successful treatment was considered to have occurred when the tooth was extracted with no reported pain. Data was analyzed with the Fisher's exact test, unpaired t-test and normality test.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients received lidocaine and 20 received articaine. Forty of the 41 patients achieved initial anaesthesia 10 minutes after injection: 21 after lidocaine and 19 after articaine (P = 0.488). Pain-free extraction was accomplished in 33 patients: 19 after lidocaine and 14 after articaine buccal and palatal infiltrations (P = 0.226).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in efficacy between equivalent doses of lidocaine and articaine in the anaesthesia of maxillary posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis.