6533b835fe1ef96bd129eab6
RESEARCH PRODUCT
Comparative split-mouth study of the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 0.5% bupivacaine in impacted mandibular third molar extraction
Berta García-miraMiguel Peñarrocha-diagoJosé María Sanchis-bielsaMaría Peñarrocha-diagoHilario Pellicer-choverJuan Cervera-ballestersubject
MolarBupivacainemedicine.medical_specialtybusiness.industryVisual analogue scaleResearchHemodynamicsSoft tissueOdontologíaArticaine:CIENCIAS MÉDICAS [UNESCO]Ciencias de la saludSurgeryEpinephrineAnesthesiaAnestheticUNESCO::CIENCIAS MÉDICASMedicineOral SurgerybusinessGeneral Dentistrymedicine.drugdescription
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of articaine at 4% (epinephrine 1:100,000) with bupivacaine at 0.5% (epinephrine 1:200,000) for surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. Study Design: This was a randomized, double blind, split-mouth, clinical trial. Thirty-six patients took part and underwent extraction of 72 lower third molars. The variables studied were: anesthetic latency time, intra-operative bleeding, anesthetic quality, hemodynamic changes during the surgical intervention, anesthetic duration in the soft tissues, post-operative analgesia and post-operative pain at 2, 6, 12 and 24 hours using a visual analogue scale, as well as any need for additional rescue medication. Results: Latency time was 2.0 minutes for articaine and 3.1 minutes for bupivacaine, with statistically significant difference (p0.05). Conclusions: Articaine showed greater clinical efficacy than bupivacaine, reducing latency time, bleeding, anesthetic duration in the soft tissues and achieving higher anesthetic quality, requiring less reinforcement during surgery than bupivacaine. Key words:Articaine, bupivacaine, anesthetic efficacy, impacted mandibular third molar.
year | journal | country | edition | language |
---|---|---|---|---|
2013-04-01 |