Is Articaine More Potent than Mepivacaine for Use in Oral Surgery?

Objectives: To investigate the potency and speed of action of 4% articaine and 2% mepivacaine for maxillary teeth extractions. Material and Methods: Ninety-four patients, aged between 16 to 70 years old, were recruited in this study. Two regimens were randomly administered over one visit. Patient...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Giath Gazal
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Stilus Optimus 2018-09-01
Series:eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.ejomr.org/JOMR/archives/2018/3/e5/v9n3e5ht.htm
_version_ 1819085729805893632
author Giath Gazal
author_facet Giath Gazal
author_sort Giath Gazal
collection DOAJ
description Objectives: To investigate the potency and speed of action of 4% articaine and 2% mepivacaine for maxillary teeth extractions. Material and Methods: Ninety-four patients, aged between 16 to 70 years old, were recruited in this study. Two regimens were randomly administered over one visit. Patients of treatment group 1 received mepivacaine 2% with 1:100,000 adrenaline, whereas treatment group 2 - articaine 4% with 1:100,000 adrenaline. The onset time of pulp anaesthesia for maxillary teeth indicated for extraction was determined by electronic pulp testing. At any point of trial (10 minutes), the anesthetized tooth becomes unresponsive for maximal pulp stimulation (64 reading), the extraction was carried out. Results: In this study, 85 patients had successful local anaesthetic followed by extraction within the study duration time (10 min). However, 5 patients had failed dental extraction (4 in mepivacaine group and 1 in articaine group). Patients in the articaine buccal infiltration group recorded faster onset time of action regarding anaesthesia and teeth extraction than patients in mepivacaine buccal infiltration group (P = 0.03). Conclusions: Articaine is an effective anaesthetic with a rapid onset, comparable to mepivacaine in infiltrative techniques used for maxillary teeth extraction. However, articaine has clinically achieved faster dental anaesthesia and earlier teeth extraction than mepivacaine. So, articaine can be the local anaesthetic of first choice in oral surgery.
first_indexed 2024-12-21T21:08:59Z
format Article
id doaj.art-f44b276e28e94c58ac85c14f479cbef9
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2029-283X
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-21T21:08:59Z
publishDate 2018-09-01
publisher Stilus Optimus
record_format Article
series eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research
spelling doaj.art-f44b276e28e94c58ac85c14f479cbef92022-12-21T18:50:13ZengStilus OptimuseJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research2029-283X2018-09-0193e510.5037/jomr.2018.9305Is Articaine More Potent than Mepivacaine for Use in Oral Surgery?Giath GazalObjectives: To investigate the potency and speed of action of 4% articaine and 2% mepivacaine for maxillary teeth extractions. Material and Methods: Ninety-four patients, aged between 16 to 70 years old, were recruited in this study. Two regimens were randomly administered over one visit. Patients of treatment group 1 received mepivacaine 2% with 1:100,000 adrenaline, whereas treatment group 2 - articaine 4% with 1:100,000 adrenaline. The onset time of pulp anaesthesia for maxillary teeth indicated for extraction was determined by electronic pulp testing. At any point of trial (10 minutes), the anesthetized tooth becomes unresponsive for maximal pulp stimulation (64 reading), the extraction was carried out. Results: In this study, 85 patients had successful local anaesthetic followed by extraction within the study duration time (10 min). However, 5 patients had failed dental extraction (4 in mepivacaine group and 1 in articaine group). Patients in the articaine buccal infiltration group recorded faster onset time of action regarding anaesthesia and teeth extraction than patients in mepivacaine buccal infiltration group (P = 0.03). Conclusions: Articaine is an effective anaesthetic with a rapid onset, comparable to mepivacaine in infiltrative techniques used for maxillary teeth extraction. However, articaine has clinically achieved faster dental anaesthesia and earlier teeth extraction than mepivacaine. So, articaine can be the local anaesthetic of first choice in oral surgery.http://www.ejomr.org/JOMR/archives/2018/3/e5/v9n3e5ht.htmanesthesiaarticainelocal anesthesiamepivacaineoral surgerytooth extraction
spellingShingle Giath Gazal
Is Articaine More Potent than Mepivacaine for Use in Oral Surgery?
eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research
anesthesia
articaine
local anesthesia
mepivacaine
oral surgery
tooth extraction
title Is Articaine More Potent than Mepivacaine for Use in Oral Surgery?
title_full Is Articaine More Potent than Mepivacaine for Use in Oral Surgery?
title_fullStr Is Articaine More Potent than Mepivacaine for Use in Oral Surgery?
title_full_unstemmed Is Articaine More Potent than Mepivacaine for Use in Oral Surgery?
title_short Is Articaine More Potent than Mepivacaine for Use in Oral Surgery?
title_sort is articaine more potent than mepivacaine for use in oral surgery
topic anesthesia
articaine
local anesthesia
mepivacaine
oral surgery
tooth extraction
url http://www.ejomr.org/JOMR/archives/2018/3/e5/v9n3e5ht.htm
work_keys_str_mv AT giathgazal isarticainemorepotentthanmepivacaineforuseinoralsurgery