Anesthetic effect of articaine and lidocaine in tooth extraction
Abhigyan Manas, Archana H Lanje (Misurya), Savita Singh, Jagadeesh K.N, Subham Patra, Prasanna T.R, Santosh T, Vaibhav Awinashe

TL;DR
This study compares the anesthetic effects of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine during tooth extraction, finding articaine to be faster and longer-lasting.
Contribution
The study provides empirical evidence on the superior onset and duration of 4% articaine compared to 2% lidocaine in dental procedures.
Findings
4% articaine had a shorter onset of action compared to 2% lidocaine.
Articaine provided a longer duration of anesthesia than lidocaine.
Fewer patients required re-anesthetization with articaine.
Abstract
The safety and efficiency of 4% articaine compared to 2% lidocaine for tooth extraction is of interest to dentists. Hence, a total of 30 patients requiring premolar tooth extraction for orthodontics reason were randomly divided into 2 groups namely (1) articaine and (2) lidocaine. Parameters such as onset of action, duration of anaesthesia and need to re-anesthetize at the surgical zone are evaluated. Pain evaluation was done with visual analog scale (VAS). Data shows that 4% articaine had a shorter onset of action and longer duration of anaesthesia compared to lidocaine.
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsDental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques · Anesthesia and Sedative Agents · Dental Research and COVID-19
