A prospective, randomized, triple-blind comparison of articaine and bupivacaine for maxillary infiltrations

7Citations
Citations of this article
35Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the clinical anesthetic efficacy of 0.5% bupivacaine and 4% articaine (both with 1:200.000 adrenaline) for anterior maxillary infiltration in healthy volunteers. Material and methods: A triple-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial was carried out in 20 volunteers. A supraperiosteal buccal injection of 0.9 ml of either solution at the apex of the lateral incisor was done in 2 appointments separated 2 weeks apart. The following outcome variables were measured: latency time, anesthetic efficacy (dental pulp, keratinized gingiva, alveolar mucosa and upper lip mucosa and tissue) and the duration of anesthetic effect. Hemodynamic parameters were monitored during the procedure. Results: Latency time recorded was similar for both anesthetic solutions (p>0.05). No statistically significant differences were found in terms of anesthetic efficacy for dental pulp, keratinized gingiva or alveolar mucosa. Articaine had a significant higher proportion of successful anesthesia at 10 minutes after infiltration in lip mucosa and lip skin (p=0.039). The duration of anesthesia was 336 minutes for bupivacaine and 167 minutes for articaine. (p<0.001). No significant hemodynamic alterations were noted during the procedure. Conclusions: Articaine and bupivacaine exhibited similar anesthetic efficacy for maxillary infiltrations. The duration of anesthesia was longer with the bupivacaine solution, but lip anesthesia was better with articaine. © Medicina Oral.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Vílchez-Pérez, M. A., Sancho-Puchades, M., Valmaseda-Castellón, E., Paredes-García, J., Berini-Aytés, L., & Gay-Escoda, C. (2012). A prospective, randomized, triple-blind comparison of articaine and bupivacaine for maxillary infiltrations. Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral y Cirugia Bucal, 17(2), 325–330. https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.17476

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free