Comparison of anesthetic efficacy of 2 and 4 % articaine in inferior alveolar nerve block for tooth extraction—a double-blinded randomized clinical trial

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this clinical prospective, randomized, double-blind trial was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 2 % articaine and 4 % articaine in inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia for extraction of mandibular teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 95 patients, 105 lower molar and premolar teeth were extracted after intraoral inferior alveolar nerve block. In 53 cases, 2 % articaine (group I) and, in 52 cases, 4 % articaine (group II) was administered. The primary objective was to analyze the differences of anesthetic effects between the two groups (complete/sufficient vs. insufficient/none). Furthermore, differences in pulpal anesthesia (onset and depth, examined with pulp vitality tester (min)), as well as in length of soft tissue anesthesia (min), were evaluated. Additionally, the need of a second injection, pain while injecting (numeric rating scale (NRS)), pain during treatment (NRS), pain after treatment (NRS), and other possible complications (excessive pain, bleeding events, prolonged deafness) were analyzed. RESULTS: Anesthesia was sufficient for dental extractions in both groups without significant differences (p = 0.201). The onset of anesthesia did not differ significantly (p = 0.297). A significantly shorter duration of soft tissue anesthesia was seen in group I (2.9 vs. 4 h; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the need for a second injection (p = 0.359), in injection pain (p = 0.386), as well as in pain during (p = 0.287) or after treatment (p = 0.121). In both groups, no complications were seen. CONCLUSIONS: The local anesthetic effect of the 4 % articaine solution is not significantly better when compared to 2 % articaine. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: For mandibular tooth extraction, articaine 2 % may be used as alternative as well.