Articaine Hydrochloride

Previous studies on intraosseous (IO) anesthesia as a primary injection have shown high success rates. The TuttleNumbNow (TNN; Orem, UT) is a new primary IO injection technique that has not been scientifically evaluated. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective randomized, crossover study was to evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of the TNN IO technique using the Septoject Evolution needle (Septodont, Saint-Maur-des-Fosses, France) compared with buccal infiltration for pulpal anesthesia in mandibular first molars.

One hundred four healthy subjects were randomly assigned to 2 treatment groups separated by at least 2 weeks. One set of injections consisted of buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar using 1.8 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine followed by a mock TNN injection distal to the mandibular first molar. The other set of injections was a mock buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar followed by a TNN injection of 1.8 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine distal to the mandibular first molar. Statistical analyses were performed.

For the mandibular first molar, which had a 42% anesthetic success rate (highest 80 reading) with buccal infiltration compared with 49% with the TNN, no statistically significant difference in success was observed (P = .2115).

The TNN technique has been advocated as an IO injection. However, the inability to deliver anesthetic solution to the cancellous bone resulted in an anesthetic success rate of 49%. The success was statistically similar to a buccal infiltration (42%) and would not provide adequate pulpal anesthesia as a primary injection.

Introduction Local anesthesia plays a crucial role in ensuring patient comfort during orthodontic extractions. Among the various local anesthetic agents commonly used in the field of oral surgery are articaine and lidocaine, which differ in their duration of action and pain effectiveness (pain control) during surgical procedures. This article aimed to analyze the characteristics of 2% lignocaine with 1:80000 adrenaline and 4% articaine with 1:100000 adrenaline regarding duration of action and pain control in patients undergoing bilateral orthodontic maxillary premolar extractions. Materials and methods A split-mouth comparative study was conducted at Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Chennai, for which 50 patients of age less than 30 years and who required bilateral orthodontic premolar extractions were selected. Approximately 4% articaine hydrochloride solution was administered on one side, and 2% lignocaine hydrochloride was administered on the contralateral side. Palatal infiltration was not given in the articaine group. The degree of extraction difficulty was similar in both groups, with no discernible variation. In each patient, the duration of anesthesia and pain control were assessed. The IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version 24.0, IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Armonk, NY) was used to perform the student's paired t-test for detecting the difference in outcome parameters between the two groups. Results Upon comparing both groups, it was concluded that the articaine group had a longer mean anesthetic duration of action of 217 minutes, whereas for the lignocaine group, it was 169 minutes, and greater pain reduction was present with the articaine group. The articaine group exhibited less pain (superior pain control) with a mean visual analogue scale (VAS) score of 1.07 compared to that of the lignocaine group with a mean VAS score of 1.53 during orthodontic premolar extractions. Both the results were statistically significant (P=0.001). Conclusion This split-mouth comparative study concludes that articaine is a more effective local anesthetic in terms of duration of action and pain reduction than that of lignocaine, and it can be used as a local anesthetic of choice for orthodontic maxillary premolar extractions.