Comparison of articaine and lignocaine for uncomplicated maxillary exodontia.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare single buccal articaine injection versus conventional lignocaine buccal and palatal injections for uncomplicated maxillary tooth extractions. STUDY DESIGN: Single blinded randomized control trial. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: The outpatient department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, from February to September 2011. METHODOLOGY: Patients aged 20 - 60 years under simple extraction in the maxillary arch were included in the study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups-A and B toss method. Maxillary teeth were divided into three groups; group-1 (posterior teeth) including first, second and third molars on either side, group-2 (middle teeth) including the premolars and group-3 (anterior teeth) including incisors and canines. Group-A (study group) received buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with 1:200,000 adrenaline and group-B (control group) received buccal and palatal infiltration of 2% lignocaine/HCl with 1:100,000 adrenaline. Faces Pain Scale (FPS) and a Visual Analogue Score (VAS) was used for objective and subjective assessment of per operative pain respectively. RESULTS: A total of 194 patients were included in the study. Group-A comprised of 100 patients while group-B consisted of 94 patients. The mean age of the total sample was 41.12 ± 13.6 years. Statistically significant difference was found for the VAS scores of anteriors (p=0.9), premolars (p=0.2) and molars (p=0.2) for groups A and B. The FPS scores for both groups were also statistically insignificant (p=0.864). CONCLUSION: Buccal infiltration with a single articaine injection and lignocaine buccal and palatal infiltration were equally effective for maxillary exodontia.