Abstract
Aim
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.
Methods
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.
Result
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).
Conclusion
This study concludes that 2% articaine in 1:2,00,000 did not demonstrate superior clinical effectiveness in comparison to 2% lignocaine.
Clinical significance
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Malamed S (2004) Clinical action of specific agents. In: Malamed S (ed) Handbook of local anesthesia. 5 e. Mosby, St. Louis
Oertal R, Rahn R, Kirch W (1997) Clinical pharmacokinetics of articaine. Clin Pharmacokinet 33:417–425
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):836–844
Haas DA, Lennnon D (1995) A 21 year retrospective study of reports of paresthesia following local anesthetic administration. J Can Dent Assoc 61:319–330
Hintze A, Paessler L (2006) Comparative investigations on the efficacy of articaine 4% (epinephrine 1:200,000) and articaine 2% (epinephrine 1:200,000) in local infiltration anaesthesia in dentistry – a randomized double blind study. Clin Oral Investig 10:145–150
Knoll-Köhler E (1991) Local anesthesia in dentistry. Zahnärztliche Mitteilungen 81(23):2370–2375
Winther JE, Patirupanusara B (1974) Evaluation of carticaine - a new local analgesic. Int J Oral Surg 3(6):422–427
Malamed SF, Gagnon S, Leblanc D (2000) A comparison between Articaine HCl and lidocaine HCl in pediatric dental patients. Pediatr Dent 22(4):307–311
Yapp KE, Hopcraft MS, Parashos P (2011) Articaine: a review of the literature. Br Dent J 210:323–329
Arrow P (2012) A comparison of articaine 4% and lignocaine 2% in block and infiltration analgesia in children. Aust Dent J 57(3):325–333
Hicks CL, von Baeyer CL, Spafford PA, van Korlaar I, Goodenough B (2001) The faces pain scale-revised: toward a common metric in pediatric pain measurement. Pain 93(2):173–183
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):293–297
Tomlinson D, von Baeyer CL, Stinson JN, Sung LA (2010) Systematic review of faces scales for the self-report of pain intensity in children. Pediatrics 126(5):e1168–e1198
De Amici D, Klersy C, Ramajoli F, Brustia L, Politi P (2000) Impact of the Hawthorne effect in a longitudinal clinical study: the case of anesthesia. Control Clin Trials 21(2):103–114
Chambers CT (2002) Johnston C. developmental differences in children’s use of rating scales. J Pediatr Psychol 27(1):27–36
St-Laurent-Gagnon T, Bernard-Bonnin AC, Villeneuve E (1992) Pain evaluation in preschool children and by their parents. Acta Paediatr 88(4):422–427
Shih AR, von Baeyer CL (1994) Preschool children’s seriation of pain faces and happy faces in the affective facial scale. Psychol Rep 74(2):659–665
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):157–162
Katyal V (2010) The efficacy and safety of articaine versus lignocaine in dental treatments: a meta-analysis. J Dent 2010(38):307–317
Jakobs W, Ladwig B, Cichon P, Oertal R, Kirch W (1995) Serum levels of articaine 2% and 4% in children. Anesth Prog 42:113–115
Dower JS (2003) A review of paresthesia. Dent Today 22:64–69
Funding
No funding was received.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
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.
Ethical approval
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
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(PDF 691 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ramadurai, N., Gurunathan, D., Samuel, A.V. et al. Effectiveness of 2% Articaine as an anesthetic agent in children: randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Invest 23, 3543–3550 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2775-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2775-5