Efficacy of 2% Lignocaine and 4% Articaine in Oral Surgical Procedure: A Comparative Study.

AIM AND OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of 2% lignocaine and 4% articaine in the extraction of mandibular molars.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was conducted on 120 patients requiring surgical removal of tooth. Patients were categorized into 2 groups with 60 samples each. Group I patients were administered 2% lignocaine with 1:50,000 epinephrine and group II patients were administered 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for the extraction of mandibular molar. Inferior alveolar nerve, lingual, and buccal nerve block used in both groups to anesthetize the area.

RESULTS

The mean onset of action in group I was 85.2 seconds and in group II was 52.6 seconds, duration of anesthesia in group I was 170.2 minutes and in group II was 226.8 minutes, duration of procedure was 30.4 minutes in group I and 32.6 minutes in group II, pain during procedure in group I was 2.75 and in group II was 1.42, pain after procedure was 1.41 in group I and 0.82 in group II, pain during anesthesia insertion was 1.52 in group I and 1.04 in group II. Forty-six (76.7%) patients in group I and 52 (86.7%) patients in group II did not require re-anesthesia, while 12 (20%) in group I and 8 (13.3%) in group II required 1 time re-anesthesia and 2 (3.3%) patients required 2 times re-anesthesia in group I.

CONCLUSION

Articaine can be effectively used in oral surgical procedures as there is early onset of action, longer duration of anesthesia, and less need of re-anesthesia.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Articaine is more effective compared to lignocaine, hence it can be recommended alternatively for tooth extraction and other oral surgical procedures.