Efficacy and Safety of Articaine versus Lignocaine in Minor Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Apply

Efficacy and Safety of Articaine versus Lignocaine in Minor Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Journal Title: IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences (IOSR-JDMS) - Year 2018, Vol 17, Issue 7

Abstract

An effective and safe anaesthesia is one of the most important essentials for present day’s oral and maxillofacial surgery. Local anesthetic agents (LAAs) play the fundamental role of ensuring pain-free surgeries. A plethora of LAAs are available commercially. The rational use of a particular type will presuppose that the potency, latency, duration of anaesthetic effect, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics including toxicity of the LAAs are evaluated and considered to make the appropriate choice in every given clinical situation. In making this decision on appropriate LAA for use, the availability and price are also factors for consideration. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of articaine and lignocaine (both with 1:100,000 adrenaline) in patients presenting for routine minor oral surgery. The study is designed as a randomized clinical trial in patients requiring simple routine minor oral surgery. The subjects had 1.8mls of 4% articaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) or 1.8mls of 2% lignocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) for maxillary infiltrations. The principal outcome measures were anaesthetic success/efficacy (latency and onset of surgical anaesthesia) and postinjection adverse events or post-injection pain. There were a total of 93 subjects that participated in this study. This number was made up of 49 females and 44 males. A-100 cohort consists of 47 subjects while L-100 consists of 46 subjects. The mean ± SEM of the age of the subjects was 39.2 ± 1.7 years and 37.2 ± 1.7 years for the A100 and L-100 cohorts respectively (p=0.403) . The mean latency time ± SEM was 35.0 ± 1.0 seconds and 46.0 ± 1.0 seconds for the A-100 and L-100 cohorts respectively (p=0.000). Time of onset of surgical anaesthesia ± SEM was 2.0 ± 0.8 minutes and 3.5 ± 0.2 minutes for the A-100 and L-100 cohorts respectively (p=0.000). Mean surgery time ± SEM was 16.8 ± 0.7 minutes and 16.4 ± 0.6 minutes for the A-100 and L-100 cohorts respectively (p=0.690). Majority reported no pain for both cohorts (A-100, 46; A-L, 42). Whereas 1 subject reported mild pain in A-100 cohort, 3 reported mild pain in the L-100 cohort, (p=0.104). No adverse reactions were recorded throughout the study period. The latency time for action was significantly lower in the articaine cohort. Also, the time for onset of surgical anaesthesia was significantly lower in the articaine cohort. Both articaine and lignocaine appear relatively safe for use in the study population

Authors and Affiliations

ED Odai, RI Ozolua, ON Obuekwe

Keywords

Good, Bad And The Ugly; Dispensing Accuracy Of The Pharmacists Based On The Good, Legible And Illegible Handwriting Prescription Patterns Of Physicians.

Introduction: It’s no secret that many doctors have poor handwriting. While we sometimes joke about the difficulty in reading doctors’ scrawl, it’s no laughing matter. In fact, it can lead to deadly mistakes. In 1999, on...

Utilization of Dental Health Care Services among 12 Year School Going Children of Nellore City, Andhra Pradesh, India- Across Sectional Study

Introduction: Good oral health help us to ensure the over all health and well being. In order to improve the oral health outcomes an adequate use of health services and factors predictive of this behaviour is essential....

EP ID EP377411
DOI 10.9790/0853-1707090408.
Views 67
Downloads 0