Articaine Solution Research Articles

Safety of articaine in spinal anaesthesia

Editor, We share the concern about the risk of neurotoxicity of intrathecal articaine 40 mg ml−1 as outlined by Malinovsky1 in an invited Commentary in a recent issue of European Journal of Anaesthesiology. All local anaesthetics are neurotoxic when used at high concentrations, including, for instance, lidocaine.2 Thus, the common and logical aim of any regional anaesthetic activity is to use small doses and acceptably diluted solutions that retain clinical effectiveness. In order to avoid any misunderstanding, we wish to point out that the articaine concentration used by us in our recent study,3 and referred to by Malinovsky,1 was not 40 but 30 mg ml−1. The dilution was the result of the addition of 0.7 ml glucose 300 mg ml−1 to the articaine solution. When fentanyl is used concomitantly with the hyperbaric articaine,4 the dilution is even greater. Additionally, we would like to correct a misinterpretation concerning patient satisfaction with the anaesthetic.1 In the postoperative interviews, in fact, patients in both study groups (articaine and bupivacaine–fentanyl) were either very satisfied (56%) or satisfied (44%) with their spinal anaesthetic without any differences between groups.3 Acknowledgements The study was supported by Helsinki University Hospital research funds (EVO). There are no relevant conflicts of interest.

Clinical study of hemodynamic changes comparing 4% articaine hydrochloride with 1:100,000 and 1:200,000 epinephrine

To evaluate hemodynamic changes with the use of 4% articaine and 2 different concentrations of epinephrine (1:100,000 and 1:200,000) in the surgical removal of symmetrically positioned lower third molars. A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial was carried out involving 42 patients each undergoing 2 surgeries on separate occasions under local anesthesia with 4% articaine and either epinephrine 1:100,000 or 1:200,000. The following parameters were assessed at 4 different moments: systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure; heart rate; oxygen saturation; rate pressure product (RPP); and pressure rate quotient (PRQ). The concentration of epinephrine did not affect diastolic blood pressure or oxygen saturation during the surgeries. Significant differences between were detected for heart rate, RPP, and PRQ (P < .05). The epinephrine concentration (1:100,000 or 1:200,000) in a 4% articaine solution influences hemodynamic parameters without perceptible clinical changes in healthy patients undergoing lower third molar removal.

Clinical use of an epinephrine-reduced (1/400,000) articaine solution in short-time dental routine treatments—a multicenter study

The addition of epinephrine in dental local anaesthesia results in a longer and deeper anaesthesia under almost ischemic conditions. For short-time dental treatments, epinephrine-reduced anaesthetics may offer shorter and more individual anaesthesia with reduced potential side effects. The aim of this study was a clinical evaluation of anaesthetic potency and adverse effects of an epinephrine-reduced articaine formulation in dental patients undergoing short-time routine treatment. In a prospective clinical, not interventional, study between January 2008 and February 2009, 908 patients undergoing short-time dental treatment in five medical centers were anaesthetized with 4% articaine 1:400,000 epinephrine (Ubistesin, 3M/ESPE, Seefeld, Germany). Efficacy and safety in clinical use were evaluated. A follow-up after 1 day was conducted by telephone survey. A mean amount of 1.3-ml anaesthetic solution was needed to achieve a complete or sufficient anaesthesia in 97% (n = 876) of cases. A second injection had to be done in 3.7% (n = 34) before and in 11.9% (n = 108) during treatment. Here, the second injection had to be applied after a mean of 48.6 min. The mean duration of soft tissue anaesthesia after infiltration was 146.6 min, after nerve block 187.7 min. The painful treatment took a mean of 50.2 min and the total treatment time summed up to 68.8 min. In 1.7% cases (n = 15), unwanted side effects were observed. The results indicate that a lower concentration of epinephrine in combination with the 4% articaine solution leads to a high success rate of efficacy. The clinical use of a 4% articaine 1:400,000 epinephrine solution can be stated as safe and effective in short dental routine treatments. Reconsiderations concerning limitations of indication or additional contraindications are not necessary.

A Comparison of the Anesthetic Efficacy of Articaine and Lidocaine in Patients with Irreversible Pulpitis

The purpose of the present study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine with that of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine during pulpectomy in patients with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth. Forty volunteers, patients with irreversible pulpitis admitted to the Emergency Center of the School of Dentistry at the University of São Paulo, randomly received a conventional inferior alveolar nerve block containing 3.6 mL of either 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. During the subsequent pulpectomy, we recorded the patients' subjective assessments of lip anesthesia, the absence/presence of pulpal anesthesia through electric pulp stimulation, and the absence/presence of pain through a verbal analogue scale. All tested patients reported lip anesthesia after the application of either inferior alveolar nerve block. Regarding pulpal anesthesia success as measured with the pulp tester, the lidocaine solution had a higher success rate (70%) than the articaine solution (65%). For patients reporting none or mild pain during pulpectomy, the success rate of the articaine solution (65%) was higher than that of the lidocaine solution (45%). Yet, none of the observed differences between articaine and lidocaine were statistically significant. Apparently, therefore, both local anesthetic solutions had similar effects on the patients with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth. Neither of the solutions, however, resulted in an effective pain control during irreversible pulpitis treatments.

New Portland Cement–based Materials for Endodontics Mixed with Articaine Solution: A Study of Cellular Response

The biocompatibility of innovative tetrasilicate cements proposed for root-end filling restorations was tested. White ProRoot-MTA and AH Plus were used as control. The new cements were mixed with a local anesthetic solution (4% articaine) to form a paste. Human osteoblast-like cells Saos-2 were challenged in short-term cultures (72 hours) with solid materials and with material extracts prepared in culture medium. Cell growth and viability, cellular attachment, and morphologic features were assessed to verify cell/material interactions. No acute toxicity was exerted by the experimental cements in the assay systems. On solid samples Saos-2 adhered and proliferated on all the experimental cements and on MTA. The ultrastructural findings revealed that Saos-2 were able to adhere and to spread. The maintenance of the osteoblastic phenotype on the innovative cements was confirmed by the alkaline phosphatase assay. All experimental cements prepared with articaine supported the growth of bone-like cells, showing suitable properties to be used as canal sealers and root-end filling materials.

Epinephrine Concentration (1:100,000 or 1:200,000) Does Not Affect the Clinical Efficacy of 4% Articaine for Lower Third Molar Removal: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Crossover Study

This study compared the use of 4% articaine in association with 1:100,000 (10 mug/mL; A100) or 1:200,000 (5 mug/mL; A200) epinephrine in lower third molar removal. Fifty healthy volunteers underwent removal of symmetrically positioned lower third molars, in 2 separate appointments, under local anesthesia with either A100 or A200, in a double-blind, randomized, and crossed manner. Latency, duration of postoperative analgesia, duration of anesthetic action on soft tissues, intraoperative bleeding, and hemodynamic parameters were evaluated. A100 and A200 presented very similar latency (1.64 +/- 0.08 and 1.58 +/- 0.08 minutes, respectively; P > .05). Identical volumes of both anesthetic solutions were used: 2.7 mL = 108 mg of articaine plus 27 mug (A100) or 13.5 mug (A200) of epinephrine. The 2 solutions provided similar duration of postoperative analgesia regardless of bone removal (around 200 minutes; P > .05). The 2 solutions also had a similar duration of anesthetic action on soft tissues (around 250 minutes; P > .05). The surgeon's rating of intraoperative bleeding was considered very close to minimal. Transient changes in hemodynamic parameters were observed, but these were neither clinically significant nor attributable to the type of anesthetic used (P > .05). An epinephrine concentration of 1:100,000 or 1:200,000 in 4% articaine solution does not affect the clinical efficacy of this local anesthetic. It is possible to successfully use the 4% articaine formulation with a lower concentration of epinephrine (1:200,000 or 5 mug/mL) for lower third molar extraction with or without bone removal.

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

A randomised double-blind study investigated 155 patients with tooth extractions in the mandibular and maxillary jaws for a loss of anaesthetic potency when reducing the concentration of the active in articaine solutions. Tests were performed on the preparations of articaine 4% with a 1:200,000 addition of epinephrine (Ultracain D-S) and articaine 2% with a 1:200,000 addition of epinephrine (Ultracain 2%-Suprarenin). Local infiltration anaesthesia was the chosen method of anaesthesia. The most noticeable difference observed between the two injection solutions concerned the duration of anaesthesia, which was significantly shortened under the low-dose solution. The 4% articaine solution did not prove superior in local anaesthetic effect. Articaine 2% with epinephrine 1:200,000, therefore, can be considered a suitable local anaesthetic for tooth extractions.

Onset and duration periods of articaine and lidocaine on maxillary infiltration

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the onset and duration of pulpal anesthesia by maxillary infiltration using 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Method and Materials Twenty healthy patients randomly received 1.8 mL of one of the three local anesthetics during operative dentistry procedures of low complexity on three maxillary posterior teeth. Onset and duration were determined using an electric pulp tester. Results The mean values for pulpal onset were 2.8, 1.6, and 1.4 minutes and for pulpal duration were 39.2, 56.7, and 66.3 minutes, respectively, for 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, and 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Statistical analysis by the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test showed significant differences with better results (shorter onset and longer duration periods) for both articaine solutions compared with the lidocaine solution. Although 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine clinically presented the shortest onset and the longest duration periods, there was no statistically significant difference between the articaine solutions. Conclusion Both articaine solutions produced shorter onset and longer duration of pulpal anesthesia by maxillary infiltration than the lidocaine solution did. Statistical analysis did not confirm better clinical results of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine than with 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine.— Reprinted with permission of Quintessence Publishing .

A Comparison of Articaine and Lidocaine for Inferior Alveolar Nerve Blocks

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the degree of pulpal anesthesia obtained with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve blocks. Using a crossover design, inferior alveolar nerve blocks were randomly administered, in a double-blind manner, using 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, at two separate appointments, to 57 subjects. A pulp tester was used to test for anesthesia, in 4-min cycles for 60 min, of the molars, premolars, central, and lateral incisors. Anesthesia was considered successful when two consecutive 80 readings were obtained within 15 min and the 80 reading was continuously sustained for 60 min. Using the articaine solution, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 4 to 54% from the central incisor to the second molar. Using the lidocaine solution, successful pulpal anesthesia ranged from 2 to 48%. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the articaine and lidocaine solutions. We concluded that 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was similar to 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve blocks.

Efficacy of articaine and lidocaine in a primary intraligamentary injection administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy of the intraligamentary injection of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, administered with computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system, in mandibular posterior teeth. Using a crossover design, intraligamentary injections of 1.4 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and of 1.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine were randomly administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system, in a double-blind manner on the mesial and distal aspects of a mandibular first molar, at 2 separate appointments to 51 subjects. A pulp tester was used to test for anesthesia, in 2-minute cycles for 60 minutes, of the mandibular first and second molars and second premolar. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings (highest output) were obtained within 20 minutes. Successful pulpal anesthesia was obtained 86% of the time for the first molar using the articaine solution and 74% of the time using the lidocaine solution. There were no significant differences (P > .05) between the articaine and lidocaine solutions. The mean onset times of pulpal anesthesia for the first molar were 1.3 minutes with articaine solution and 2.2 minutes with lidocaine solution. Duration of pulpal anesthesia for the first molar was 34 minutes for the articaine solution and 31 minutes for the lidocaine solution. The efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was similar to the efficacy of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for intraligamentary injections.