HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 138, No 8, 1104-1112. © 2007 American Dental Association

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Robertson, D. Articles by McCartney, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Robertson, D. Articles by McCartney, M. Related Collections Pharmacology

JADA Continuing Education

Background. The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover study comparing the degree of pulpal anesthesia achieved by means of mandibular first molar buccal infiltrations of two anesthetic solutions: 4 percent articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine.

Methods. Each of 60 blinded adult subjects randomly received two buccal infiltrations at the first molar site: one cartridge of 4 percent articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine at one appointment and one cartridge of 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine at another appointment. The injections were administered during two separate appointments spaced at least one week apart. The authors used an electric pulp tester to assess the first and second molars and the first and second premolars for pulpal anesthesia in three-minute cycles for 60 minutes. They considered anesthesia to be successful when they obtained two consecutive pulp test readings of 80 (meaning the subject evidenced no response at the maximum output on the pulp tester).

Results. With the lidocaine formulation, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 45 to 67 percent. With the articaine formulation, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 75 to 92 percent. There was a significant difference (P < .05) in anesthetic success between the lidocaine and articaine formulations for each of the four teeth. Pulpal anesthesia declined slowly over 60 minutes with both formulations.

Conclusion and Clinical Implications. For a mandibular buccal infiltration of the first molar, 4 percent articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine will result in a higher success rate than will 2 percent lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, but the duration of pulpal anesthesia will decline over 60 minutes with either formulation.

Key Words: Local anesthetics; articaine; lidocaine; infiltration; mandible

Abbreviations: VAS: Visual analog scale

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Abdulwahab, S. Boynes, P. Moore, S. Seifikar, A. Al-Jazzaf, A. Alshuraidah, J. Zovko, and J. Close The Efficacy of Six Local Anesthetic Formulations Used for Posterior Mandibular Buccal Infiltration Anesthesia J Am Dent Assoc, August 1, 2009; 140(8): 1018 - 1024. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Haase, A. Reader, J. Nusstein, M. Beck, and M. Drum Comparing Anesthetic Efficacy of Articaine Versus Lidocaine as a Supplemental Buccal Infiltration of the Mandibular First Molar After an Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block J Am Dent Assoc, September 1, 2008; 139(9): 1228 - 1235. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Flanagan EFFICACY OF ARTICAINE J Am Dent Assoc, November 1, 2007; 138(11): 1418 - 1420. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. L. Gladstein MORE ABOUT ARTICAINE J Am Dent Assoc, November 1, 2007; 138(11): 1420 - 1420. [Full Text] [PDF]