Effectiveness of 2% Articaine as an anesthetic agent in children: randomized controlled trial
- 102 Downloads
The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 2% articaine and 2% lignocaine in achieving adequate anesthesia in children between the age group of 6–13 years using inferior alveolar nerve block.
A triple blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted in 180 participants (90 patients- 2% articaine, 90 patients-2% lignocaine). Effectiveness of the anesthetic agent was determined at 3 points determined by subjective evaluation of pain using pain scales (FPS-R). Paired sample t-test and chi square test were performed for statistical significance.
Anesthetic success for 2% articaine were 64.4%, 42.2% and 81.8% respectively. The anesthetic success of 2% lignocaine was 66.7%, 48.9% and 85.7% at point one, point two and point three respectively (p > 0.05).
This study concludes that 2% articaine in 1:2,00,000 did not demonstrate superior clinical effectiveness in comparison to 2% lignocaine.
Lignocaine has always been considered the gold standard. With its unique chemical structure and increased potency, Articaine has been gaining popularity. Its efficacy in 2% concentration had not been compared to 2% lignocaine. 2% articaine did not show clinical superiority but its comparable effectiveness with lignocaine can encourage further research in using articaine in reduced concentrations to improve effectiveness.
KeywordsRandomized controlled trial Articaine Children
No funding was received.
Compliance with ethical standard
Conflict of interest
Dr. Neeraja Ramadurai declares that she has no conflict of interest.
Dr. Deepa Gurunathan declares that she has no conflict of interest.
Dr. EMG Subramanian declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Dr. Victor Samuel declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Dr. Steven Rodrigues declares that he has no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Malamed S (2004) Clinical action of specific agents. In: Malamed S (ed) Handbook of local anesthesia. 5 e. Mosby, St. LouisGoogle Scholar
- 3.Garisto GA, Gaffen AS, Lawrence HP, Tenenbaum HC (2010) Haas DA. Occurrence of paresthesia after dental local anesthetic administration in the United States. J am dent Assoc 1939. Jul 141(7):836–844Google Scholar
- 4.Haas DA, Lennnon D (1995) A 21 year retrospective study of reports of paresthesia following local anesthetic administration. J Can Dent Assoc 61:319–330Google Scholar
- 6.Knoll-Köhler E (1991) Local anesthesia in dentistry. Zahnärztliche Mitteilungen 81(23):2370–2375Google Scholar
- 8.Malamed SF, Gagnon S, Leblanc D (2000) A comparison between Articaine HCl and lidocaine HCl in pediatric dental patients. Pediatr Dent 22(4):307–311Google Scholar
- 12.Merkel SI, Voepel-Lewis T, Shayevitz JR, Malviya S (1997) The FLACC: a behavioral scale for scoring postoperative pain in young children. Pediatr Nurs 23(3):293–297Google Scholar
- 18.Von Baeyer CL. Children’s self-reports of pain intensity: scale selection, limitations and interpretation. Pain Res Manag J Can Pain Soc 2006;11(3):157–162Google Scholar
- 19.Katyal V (2010) The efficacy and safety of articaine versus lignocaine in dental treatments: a meta-analysis. J Dent 2010(38):307–317Google Scholar
- 20.Jakobs W, Ladwig B, Cichon P, Oertal R, Kirch W (1995) Serum levels of articaine 2% and 4% in children. Anesth Prog 42:113–115Google Scholar
- 21.Dower JS (2003) A review of paresthesia. Dent Today 22:64–69Google Scholar