Top

Published in:

01-06-2021 | Anesthetics | Original Article

Buffered 2% articaine versus non-buffered 4% articaine in maxillary infiltration: randomized clinical trial

Authors: Klinger Souza Amorim, Vanessa Tavares Silva Fontes, Anne Caroline Gercina, Francisco Carlos Groppo, Liane Maciel Almeida Souza

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 6/2021

Abstract

Objectives

This randomized, triple-blind, crossover clinical trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy, onset, length of pulp and soft tissue anesthesia, and pain during injection of 2% buffered articaine and 4% non-buffered articaine solutions.

Methods

Each volunteer received two maxillary supraperiosteal anesthesia infiltrations in canine area. The infiltrations were performed at two different sessions using a different local anesthetic solution for each session, and the anesthetic injection speed was always 1 mL/min. The assessment of the onset and length of pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia was performed with the pulp electrical test “pulp tester” and the esthesiometer kit, respectively. Volunteers marked pain during injection on a visual analog scale (VAS). The anesthetics solutions pH was evaluated through the pH meter equipment.

Results

There was no difference between the two anesthetic solutions (onset of soft tissue anesthesia, p = 0.5386; length of soft tissue anesthesia, p = 0.718; onset of pulpal anesthesia, p = 0.747; length of pulpal anesthesia, p = 0.375), except for pain during the injection which was lower when buffered 2% articaine was used (p = 0.001) and the pH. The pH analysis revealed that the solutions differed from one another (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

The 2% buffered articaine solution provided the same anesthetic properties then 4% unbuffered articaine with a great reduction in pain during injection.

Clinical relevance

The possibility of use 2% buffered articaine solution instead of 4% articaine maintaining the same anesthetic properties with a great reduction in pain during injection and half of the anesthetic salt concentration.

Malamed S (2019) Handbook of local anesthesia, 7th edn. Elsevier-mosby, St. Louis, Missouri

Malamed SF (2011) Buffering local anesthetics in dentistry. Pulse 44:8–9

Saatchi M, Farhad AR, Shenasa N, Haghighi SK (2016) Effect of sodium bicarbonate buccal infiltration on the success of inferior alveolar nerve block in mandibular first molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a prospective, randomized double-blind study. J Endod 42:1458–1461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.07.004CrossRefPubMed

Davies RJ (2003) Buffering the pain of local anaesthetics: a systematic review. Emerg Med 15:81–88. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-2026.2003.00413.xCrossRef

Shyamala M, Ramesh C, Yuvaraj V, Suresh V, SathyaNarayanan R, Balaji TS, Neil Dominic M, Nithin Joseph Jude B (2016) A comparative study between bupivacaine with adrenaline and carbonated bupivacaine with adrenaline for surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molar. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 15:99–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-015-0791-4CrossRefPubMed

Al-Sultan F (2004) Effectiveness of pH adjusted lidocaine versus commercial lidocaine for maxillary infiltration anesthesia. Al-Rafidain Dent J 4:34–39. https://doi.org/10.33899/rden.2004.164884CrossRef

Al-Sultan F, Fathie W, Hamid R (2006) A clinical evaluation on the alkalization of local anesthetic solution in periapical surgery. Al-Rafidain Dent J 6:71–77. https://doi.org/10.33899/rden.2006.40218CrossRef

Kashyap VM, Desai R, Reddy PB, Menon S (2011) Effect of alkalinisation of lignocaine for intraoral nerve block on pain during injection, and speed of onset of anaesthesia. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 49:e72–e75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.04.068CrossRefPubMed

Gupta S, Mandlik G, Padhye MN, Kini YK, Kakkar S, Hire AV (2014) Combating inadequate anesthesia in periapical infections, with sodium bicarbonate: a clinical double blind study. Oral Maxillofac Surg 18:325–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-013-0418-1CrossRefPubMed

10.

Warren VT, Fisher AG, Rivera EM, Saha PT, Turner B, Reside G, Phillips C, White RP Jr (2017) Buffered 1% lidocaine with epinephrine is as effective as non-buffered 2% lidocaine with epinephrine for mandibular nerve block. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 75:1363–1366. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOMS.2016.12.045CrossRefPubMed

11.

Phero JA, Warren VT, Fisher AG, Rivera EM, Saha PT, Reside G, Phillips C, White RP Jr (2017) Buffered 1% lidocaine with epinephrine can be as effective as nonbuffered 2% lidocaine with epinephrine for maxillary field block. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 75:2071–2075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2017.03.032CrossRefPubMed

12.

Kung J, McDonagh M, Sedgley CM (2015) Does articaine provide an advantage over lidocaine in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod 41:1784–1794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.07.001CrossRefPubMed

13.

Kuhn B, Mohr P, Stahl M (2010) Intramolecular hydrogen bonding in medicinal chemistry. J Med Chem 53:2601–2611. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm100087sCrossRefPubMed

14.

Skjevik ÅA, Haug BE, Lygre H, Teigen K (2011) Intramolecular hydrogen bonding in articaine can be related to superior bone tissue penetration: a molecular dynamics study. Biophys Chem 154:18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpc.2010.12.002CrossRefPubMed

15.

Shurtz R, Nusstein J, Reader A, Drum M, Fowler S, Beck M (2015) Buffered 4% articaine as a primary buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. J Endod 41:1403–1407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.05.005CrossRefPubMed

16.

Kämmerer PW, Schneider D, Palarie V, Schiegnitz E, Daubländer M (2017) Comparison of anesthetic efficacy of 2 and 4 % articaine in inferior alveolar nerve block for tooth extraction—a double-blinded randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 21:397–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1804-5CrossRefPubMed

17.

Hintze A, Paessler L (2006) Comparative investigations on the efficacy of articaine 4% (epinephrine 1:200,000) and articaine 2% (epinephrine 1:200,000) in local infiltration anaesthesia in dentistry—a randomised double-blind study. Clin Oral Investig 10:145–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-005-0025-0CrossRefPubMed

18.

Malamed SF, Tavana S, Falkel M (2013) Faster onset and more comfortable injection with alkalinized 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000. Compend Contin Educ Dent 34(1):10–20PubMed

19.

Guo J, Yin K, Roges R et al (2018) Efficacy of sodium bicarbonate buffered versus non-buffered lidocaine with epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve block: a meta-analysis. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 18:129. https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2018.18.3.129CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Catchlove RF (1972) The influence of CO 2 and pH on local anesthetic action. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 181:298–309PubMed

21.

Condouris G, Shakalis A (1964) Potentiation of the nerve-depressant effect of local anaesthetics by carbon dioxide. Nature 204:57–58CrossRef

22.

Phero JA, Nelson B, Davis B, Dunlop N, Phillips C, Reside G, Tikunov AP, White RP Jr (2017) Buffered versus non-buffered lidocaine with epinephrine for mandibular nerve block: clinical outcomes. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 75:688–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2016.09.055CrossRefPubMed

23.

Pate DA, Shimizu I, Akin R, Snodgrass K, Emrick A (2016) Safety of prefilled buffered lidocaine syringes with and without epinephrine. Dermatologic Surg 42:361–365. https://doi.org/10.1097/DSS.0000000000000624CrossRef

24.

Goodchild JH, Donaldson M (2016) Comparing the pH change of local anesthetic solutions using two chairside buffering techniques. Compend Contin Educ Dent 37:e6–e12PubMed

Title: Buffered 2% articaine versus non-buffered 4% articaine in maxillary infiltration: randomized clinical trial
Authors: Klinger Souza Amorim
Vanessa Tavares Silva Fontes
Anne Caroline Gercina
Francisco Carlos Groppo
Liane Maciel Almeida Souza
Publication date: 01-06-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Anesthetics
Anesthetics
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 6/2021
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03674-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Buffered 2% articaine versus non-buffered 4% articaine in maxillary infiltration: randomized clinical trial

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2021

Detection of Streptococcus mutans in symptomatic and asymptomatic infected root canals

The influence of zirconia veneer thickness on the degree of conversion of resin-matrix cements: an integrative review

Tailored 70S30C Bioactive glass induces severe inflammation as pulpotomy agent in primary teeth: an interim analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Abstracts of the 10th Virtual Conseuro 2021 Congress

Single-component orthodontic adhesives: comparison of the clinical and in vitro performance

The oral health status and treatment needs of children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder