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

Hnin Ei Phyo; Teeranut Chaiyasamut; Sirichai Kiattavorncharoen; Verasak Pairuchvej; Bishwa Prakash Bhattarai; Natthamet Wongsirichat

doi:10.17245/jdapm.2020.20.4.203

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

J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2020 Aug;20(4):203-212. doi: 10.17245/jdapm.2020.20.4.203. Epub 2020 Aug 27.

Authors

Hnin Ei Phyo^{1

2}, Teeranut Chaiyasamut¹, Sirichai Kiattavorncharoen¹, Verasak Pairuchvej¹, Bishwa Prakash Bhattarai³, Natthamet Wongsirichat^{1

3}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
² Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Dental Medicine, Mandalay, Myanmar.
³ Walailak University International College of Dentistry, Bangkok, Thailand.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Articaine; Buccal administration; Higher Concentration; Impacted Third Molars; Lignocaine; Visual Analog Scale.