Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Effectiveness of 2% Articaine as an anesthetic agent in children: randomized controlled trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Malamed S (2004) Clinical action of specific agents. In: Malamed S (ed) Handbook of local anesthesia. 5 e. Mosby, St. Louis

    Google Scholar 

  2. Oertal R, Rahn R, Kirch W (1997) Clinical pharmacokinetics of articaine. Clin Pharmacokinet 33:417–425

    Article  Google 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):836–844

    Google Scholar 

  4. Haas DA, Lennnon D (1995) A 21 year retrospective study of reports of paresthesia following local anesthetic administration. J Can Dent Assoc 61:319–330

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Knoll-Köhler E (1991) Local anesthesia in dentistry. Zahnärztliche Mitteilungen 81(23):2370–2375

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Winther JE, Patirupanusara B (1974) Evaluation of carticaine - a new local analgesic. Int J Oral Surg 3(6):422–427

    Article  PubMed  Google 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):307–311

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yapp KE, Hopcraft MS, Parashos P (2011) Articaine: a review of the literature. Br Dent J 210:323–329

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Article  Google 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):293–297

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chambers CT (2002) Johnston C. developmental differences in children’s use of rating scales. J Pediatr Psychol 27(1):27–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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):157–162

  19. Katyal V (2010) The efficacy and safety of articaine versus lignocaine in dental treatments: a meta-analysis. J Dent 2010(38):307–317

  20. Jakobs W, Ladwig B, Cichon P, Oertal R, Kirch W (1995) Serum levels of articaine 2% and 4% in children. Anesth Prog 42:113–115

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Dower JS (2003) A review of paresthesia. Dent Today 22:64–69

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neeraja Ramadurai.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2775-5

Keywords

Navigation