Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences
Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences Login  | Users Online: 128  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
    Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions | Online submission


ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 721-724

A prospective study to assess the efficacy of 4% articaine, 0.5% bupivacaine and 2% lignocaine using a single buccal supraperiosteal injection for maxillary tooth extraction


Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Sri Ramachandra Faculty of Dental Sciences, SRIHER, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Correspondence Address:
Deepak Chandrasekaran
Associate Professor, Dept of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Sri Ramachandra Faculty of Dental Sciences, SRIHER, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_659_20

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: The aim of this study was to demonstrate if articaine hydrochloride administered alone as a single buccal infiltration in maxillary tooth extraction can provide adequate palatal anesthesia as compared to buccal and palatal injection using lidocaine and bupivacaine. Materials and Methods: A prospective double-blinded trial was conducted on 150 patients who required maxillary tooth extraction. The patients were divided into three different groups consisting of 50 patients each. Each group was administered with 4% articaine into buccal vestibular mucosa of the tooth to be extracted, 2% lignocaine and 0.5% bupivacaine was injected into buccal and palatal side of the tooth to be extracted, respectively. Following the tooth extraction, all patients were asked to complete a 10-score Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and 5-score facial pain scale (FPS) to assess the pain on extraction. Results: According to the VAS and FPS scores, the pain on extraction between buccal infiltration of articaine and the routine buccal and palatal infiltration of lignocaine was statistically significant. Conclusion: The routine use of a palatal injection for extraction of maxillary teeth may not be required when articaine is used as a local anesthetic solution.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

suppl
 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed256    
    Printed6    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded23    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal