Removal of maxillary teeth with buccal 4% Articaine without using palatal anesthesia—A comparative double blind study

Posterior superior alveolar nerve block alone in the extraction of upper third molars: a prospective clinical study

BACKGROUND

Third molar extraction is the most commonly performed minor oral surgical procedure in outpatient settings and requires regional anesthesia for pain control. Extraction of the maxillary molars commonly requires both posterior superior alveolar nerve block (PSANB) and greater palatine nerve block (GPNB), depending on the nerve innervations of the subject teeth. We aimed to study the effectiveness of PSANB alone in maxillary third molar (MTM) extraction.

METHODS

A sample size comprising 100 erupted and semi-erupted MTM was selected and subjected to study for extraction. Under strict aseptic conditions, the patients were subjected to the classical local anesthesia technique of PSANB alone with 2% lignocaine hydrochloride and adrenaline 1:80,000. After a latency period of 10 min, objective assessment of the buccal and palatal mucosa was performed. A numerical rating scale and visual analog scale were used.

RESULTS

In the post-latency period of 10 min, the depth of anesthesia obtained in our sample on the buccal side extended from the maxillary tuberosity posteriorly to the mesial of the first premolar (15%), second premolar (41%), and first molar (44%). This inferred that anesthesia was effectively high until the first molars and was less effective further anteriorly due to nerve innervation. The depth of anesthesia on the palatal aspect was up to the first molar (33%), second molar (67%), and lateromedially; 6% of the patients received anesthesia only to the alveolar region, whereas 66% received up to 1.5 cm to the mid-palatal raphe. In 5% of the cases, regional anesthesia was re-administered. An additional 1.8 ml PSANB was required in four patients, and another patient was administered a GPNB in addition to the PSANB during the time of extraction and elevation.

CONCLUSION

The results of our study emphasize that PSANB alone is sufficient for the extraction of MTM in most cases, thereby obviating the need for poorly tolerated palatal injections.

Can Single Buccal Infiltration With 4% Articaine Induce Sufficient Analgesia for the Extraction of Maxillary Teeth? A Systematic Literature Review

This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of single buccal infiltration of articaine for extracting upper teeth. A search of the PubMed, Ovid SP, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases for English-language studies published between 2000 and 2021 was performed on August 26, 2022, based on the pre-specified question using the MeSH terms [(buccal) and (articaine) and (infiltration) and (dental)]. Of the 16 clinical trials identified involving 1,339 patients, six compared the subjective procedural pain associated with single buccal infiltration of articaine with that of lidocaine, three of which reported reduced pain and the other three greater success in extraction for the articaine group. Four of the 16 studies compared the procedural pain associated with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with double (buccal and palatal/lingual) infiltration; two reported insignificant differences between the groups; and the other two reported greater success using buccal and palatal injections. Five of the 16 studies compared the procedural pain associated with single buccal articaine with double buccal and palatal/lingual infiltration of 2% lidocaine and reported insignificant differences. The other of the 16 studies compared the subjective pain associated with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine 1:100:000 with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine 1:200:000 and found a statistically significant difference. All of these studies concluded that upper permanent maxillary teeth can be extracted using only a 4% articaine buccal infiltration, but further investigation is necessary to determine whether this approach can replace the gold standard of buccal and palatal infiltration.

The effect of single buccal infiltration anesthesia of 4% articaine with either 1:100,000 or 1:200,000 epinephrine on pulpal blood flow and anesthesia of maxillary first molars and second premolars in humans

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with either 1:100,000 (EP100) or 1:200,000 (EP200) epinephrine on pulpal blood flow (PBF), pulpal anesthesia and soft tissue anesthesia of maxillary first molars and second premolars in human subjects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifteen healthy volunteers with intact maxillary first molars and second premolars received an infiltration of 4% articaine with either EP100 or EP200 at buccal aspect of maxillary first molars. The PBF, pulpal anesthesia and soft tissue anesthesia were assessed with a laser Doppler flowmeter (LDF), an electric pulp tester (EPT) and Aesthesiometer II, respectively.

RESULTS

Articaine (4%) with either EP100 or EP200 produced PBF reduction in maxillary first molars (injected teeth) by 68.09 and 69.83%, and produced PBF reduction in second premolars (adjacent teeth) by 76.81 and 75.02%, respectively at 15 min post injection. Duration of PBF returned to baseline was 159.00 ± 21.06 (EP100) and 159.00 ± 31.97 (EP200) min in the molars, and 161.00 ± 20.02 (EP100) and 159.00 ± 25.86 (EP200) min in the premolars. The onset of pulpal anesthesia was 2.80 ± 1.26 (EP100) and 3.07 ± 1.28 (EP200) min in the molars, and 2.13 ± 0.52 (EP100) and 2.40 ± 0.83 (EP200) min in the premolars; the duration of pulpal anesthesia was 74.53 ± 24.16 (EP100) and 76.27 ± 34.03 (EP200) min in the molars, and 82.53 ± 31.03 (EP100) and 75.60 ± 37.17 (EP200) min in the premolars. Buccal tissue anesthesia was found in both teeth (100%), but palatal anesthesia was achieved by 13.33% in the premolars and 6.67% in the molars for each solution.

CONCLUSIONS

Single buccal infiltration to maxillary first molar produced PBF reduction and successful pulpal anesthesia, evaluated by EPT, in both first molar and second premolar. This anesthetic technique also produced high success of buccal tissue anesthesia, but demonstrated very low success for palatal tissue anesthesia.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Single buccal infiltration to maxillary first molar is potent enough for pulpal and buccal tissue anesthesia, except palatal tissue anesthesia, in both first molar and second premolar.

Is the only buccal infiltration anesthesia enough for extraction of mandibular anterior incisors and premolar teeth? A split-mouth randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The issue of needing additional lingual injection in extractions of mandibular premolar and incisors is still not clarified. The aim of this study is to investigate whether it is necessary to perform lingual injection in addition to buccal infiltration anesthesia in mandibular incisors and premolar teeth extractions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-six patients who admitted to our clinic for the removal of bilateral mandibular anterior teeth were included in the present study. Patients were divided into two groups. The experimental group received only 1.5 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine by injection into the buccal vestibule of the tooth. The control group received 1.5 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine by buccal injection into the buccal side and 0.3 ml same lidocaine solution injected into the lingual side of the tooth. After 5 min, tooth was extracted and each patient was asked to record the intensity of injection and extraction pain by 0-100 mm and a 10-point Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and six-pointed Face Pain Scale (FPS).

RESULTS

The injection pain scores were significantly higher in terms of the VAS 0-10 point and 0-100 mm and FPS in the control group to which additional lingual injections were applied than the experimental group (p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were found in all three scales between the groups in terms of extraction pain (p > 0.05). The mean extraction pain scores were lower in the experimental group according to the three scales. No additional anesthetic injection and post-operative complications were observed in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The extraction of mandibular incisors and premolar teeth can only be done with only the buccal infiltration.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth, it can be performed with less anesthetic amount without the need for an additional lingual injection.

Single buccal infiltration of high concentration lignocaine versus articaine in maxillary third molar surgery

Background

This research evaluated the numbness produced by lignocaine at an equal or higher concentration than that of 4% articaine through a single point of injection for maxillary third molar surgery. This randomized double-blind study was conducted to compare the anesthetic efficiency of 4% lignocaine with that of 4% articaine in impacted maxillary third molar surgery using a single buccal infiltration alone.

Methods

The study participants were 30 healthy patients requiring the bilateral surgical removal of symmetrically-positioned maxillary third molars. Using a split-mouth design, each patient randomly received buccal infiltration of 1.7 ml of 4% lignocaine and 1.7 ml of 4% articaine during two separate appointments. After 15 minutes of anesthetic injection, surgery was performed by the same surgeon using a consistent technique on both sides. Pinprick test pain scores of the buccal and palatal gingiva of the maxillary third molar after 10 minutes and 15 minutes latencies, pain scores during the surgery, the need for supplemental anesthesia, and patients' satisfaction with anesthetic efficiency were recorded. Surgery performed without supplemental anesthesia was categorized as successful.

Results

The success rates of 4% lignocaine and 4% articaine (83.34% vs. 86.67%, P = 1.00) were not significantly different. Only 5 cases (4 cases in the articaine group and 1 case in the lignocaine group) reported mild pain and pressure sensation (NRS ≤ 1) on probing at the palatal side after 15 minutes of latency (P = 0.25). The pain scores of maxillary third molar surgery in the two groups were not significantly different (P > 0.05). Moreover, the statistical analysis confirmed the comparable patient satisfaction of two study groups (P = 0.284).

Conclusion

This study provides evidence that single buccal infiltrations of 4% lignocaine and 4% articaine have comparable anesthetic efficacy and success rates for impacted maxillary third molar surgery. Both 4% lignocaine and 4% articaine can produce effective palatal anesthesia and pain control using buccal infiltration alone after 15 minutes of latency.

Comparison of the buccal injection versus buccal and palatal injection for extraction of permanent maxillary posterior teeth using 4% articaine: a split mouth study

In spite of the development of modern injection techniques, palatal injection is still a painful experience for patients. A plethora of techniques has been tested to reduce this. One such technique that has been claimed to work is administering articaine on the buccal side alone for the extraction of maxillary teeth due to its ability to diffuse through soft and hard tissues more reliably than other local anaesthetics. This split mouth study evaluated the efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100000 adrenaline to avoid the painful palatal injection for bilateral permanent maxillary tooth extraction in 50 patients. The 100mm 10 point Visual Analog Scale/Wong Baker Facial Pain Scale was used to rate the amount of pain felt on injection, on probing the tissues prior to, or during, extraction, and one hour postoperatively. Although the buccal injection alone resulted in lower pain while injecting the anaesthetic, it did not result in the absence of pain before tooth extraction as has been suggested by various studies. A total of 74% patients required a palatal injection on the study side. We conclude that in most cases, when using a buccal injection alone, one cannot rely on the diffusion of articaine for effective palatal anaesthesia. Despite this, we suggest that as an initial option in young patients, the operator can consider avoiding the painful palatal injection by the use of articaine to prevent aversion to dental treatment. Postoperatively, the difference in pain levels was not statistically significant and no patient showed signs of lesions at the injection sites.

Efficacy of Infiltration Anaesthesia of 4% Articaine HCl (buccal) Versus 2% Lignocaine HCl (buccolingual) in Extraction of Mandibular Premolars: A Single Centred, Randomised, Crossover Group Study

Purpose

The purpose of the study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of buccal and lingual infiltration (B/L I) of 2% lignocaine HCl and buccal infiltration (BI) of 4% articaine for orthodontic extraction of mandibular premolars.

Materials and Method

One hundred and four patients (age group 14-26 years) were selected with the indication of bilateral mandibular first or second premolar extraction for orthodontic treatment. Patients were randomly distributed in 2 groups. Group A received B/L I with lignocaine and Group B for BI with articaine in two different appointments in 2-week interval. The pain scores for each patient were evaluated during extraction using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and verbal pain scale (VPS). Statistical analysis was performed by descriptive and inferential statistics using Chi-square test. The agreement between VAS and VPS was obtained by applying intra-class correlation coefficient.

Results

No pain was experienced during extraction in 77% (VAS) and 79% (VPS) patients infiltrated in group A and 84% (VAS) and 90% (VPS) patients of group B with articaine. The difference between the groups was statistically significant. A strong positive correlation was found between VAS and VPS scores in the both groups.

Conclusion

Buccal infiltration with articaine proved to be an effective alternative to buccal and lingual infiltration with lignocaine in the extraction of mandibular premolars.

Is Articaine More Potent than Mepivacaine for Use in Oral Surgery?

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the potency and speed of action of 4% articaine and 2% mepivacaine for maxillary teeth extractions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ninety-four patients, aged between 16 to 70 years old, were recruited in this study. Two regimens were randomly administered over one visit. Patients of treatment group 1 received mepivacaine 2% with 1:100,000 adrenaline, whereas treatment group 2 - articaine 4% with 1:100,000 adrenaline. The onset time of pulp anaesthesia for maxillary teeth indicated for extraction was determined by electronic pulp testing. At any point of trial (10 minutes), the anesthetized tooth becomes unresponsive for maximal pulp stimulation (64 reading), the extraction was carried out.

RESULTS

In this study, 85 patients had successful local anaesthetic followed by extraction within the study duration time (10 min). However, 5 patients had failed dental extraction (4 in mepivacaine group and 1 in articaine group). Patients in the articaine buccal infiltration group recorded faster onset time of action regarding anaesthesia and teeth extraction than patients in mepivacaine buccal infiltration group (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Articaine is an effective anaesthetic with a rapid onset, comparable to mepivacaine in infiltrative techniques used for maxillary teeth extraction. However, articaine has clinically achieved faster dental anaesthesia and earlier teeth extraction than mepivacaine. So, articaine can be the local anaesthetic of first choice in oral surgery.