IADR Abstract Archives
Comparison of Anaesthetic Efficacy of Three Different Anaesthetic Agents by Using Buccal Infiltration Technique in Patients With Irreversible Pulpitis for Root Canal Treatment – A Prospective Randomized Double Blind Clinical Trial
Objectives: 1. To compare and evaluate the onset of action of 4%articaine,0.5%bupivacaine and 2% lidocaine.
2. To compare and evaluate anesthetic success of 4%articaine,0.5% bupivacaine and 2% lidocaine.
Methods: 180 patients between 18-50 years participating in this prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study.The participants were divided into three groups of 60 who received buccal infiltration of 1:1,00,000 concentration of epinephrine with either 4% Articaine,0.5%bupivacaine or 2% lidocaine.The syringe was directed from the mucobuccal fold and the needle inserted until establishing bone contact.Two minutes after the infiltration the anesthesia of the lip was assessed. Thereafter and immediately before the access opening in root canal treatment, the electric pulp stimulations was repeated to determine pulpal anesthesia.To evaluate the intensity of pain during the root canal treatment, a visual analogue scale was used: 0, no pain;1, mild, bearable pain; 2, moderate, unbearable pain; 3, severe, intense, and unbearable pain.
Results: 4% Articaine showed better anesthetic efficacy compared to 0.5% bupivacaine and 2% lidocaine and there is no significant difference between bupivacaine and lidocaine.
Conclusions: 4% Artcaine had significant anesthetic effect compared to other two anesthetic agents.
2. To compare and evaluate anesthetic success of 4%articaine,0.5% bupivacaine and 2% lidocaine.
Methods: 180 patients between 18-50 years participating in this prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study.The participants were divided into three groups of 60 who received buccal infiltration of 1:1,00,000 concentration of epinephrine with either 4% Articaine,0.5%bupivacaine or 2% lidocaine.The syringe was directed from the mucobuccal fold and the needle inserted until establishing bone contact.Two minutes after the infiltration the anesthesia of the lip was assessed. Thereafter and immediately before the access opening in root canal treatment, the electric pulp stimulations was repeated to determine pulpal anesthesia.To evaluate the intensity of pain during the root canal treatment, a visual analogue scale was used: 0, no pain;1, mild, bearable pain; 2, moderate, unbearable pain; 3, severe, intense, and unbearable pain.
Results: 4% Articaine showed better anesthetic efficacy compared to 0.5% bupivacaine and 2% lidocaine and there is no significant difference between bupivacaine and lidocaine.
Conclusions: 4% Artcaine had significant anesthetic effect compared to other two anesthetic agents.