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.

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 ( = 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 ( > 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.