Efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine in block and infiltration anesthesia administered in teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study.

Research paper by Hengameh H Ashraf, Majeed M Kazem, Omid O Dianat, Fatemeh F Noghrehkar

Indexed on: 12 Dec '12Published on: 12 Dec '12Published in: Journal of Endodontics


Profound pulpal anesthesia in posterior mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis usually requires administering an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) plus other supplemental injections. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the anesthetic success rate of buccal infiltration injections of articaine and lidocaine when supplemented with an IANB.One hundred twenty-five emergency patients who had their first or second mandibular molar diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis participated in the study and received the IANB by using either 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. One hundred two of the patients reported moderate-to-severe pain upon initiation of their endodontic treatment or through filing of their tooth canals and received supplemental buccal infiltration injections by using the same anesthetic that the IANB had been performed. After the block or the supplemental buccal infiltration injections, success was achieved with no or mild pain during instrumentation of the tooth canals.The success rate after the administration of the infiltration injections after an incomplete IANB by using lidocaine was 29%, whereas by using articaine it was 71% (P < .001). No statistical differences were detected in the success rates between the 2 anesthetics after the block injections.Supplementing an incomplete articaine IANB with articaine infiltration raises the anesthetic success more effectively compared with lidocaine in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis.