Anesthetic Effectiveness of Lidocaine Versus Articaine in Dentistry
For patients and families
In plain language
An automatic summary of structured registry data. It is an orientation aid, not a substitute for the official protocol or a physician assessment.
- What is being studied
- The protocol lists: lidocaine + epinephrine 1:100,000, Articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000.
- Who it may be relevant to
- Registry conditions: Dental Pain. Basic parameters: 18 years — 65 years · All.
- What needs checking
- Age, condition and sex are only basic indicators. Prior treatment, laboratory values and other mandatory requirements appear in the eligibility criteria below.
- Where it takes place
- Chile
- Next step
- Save the trial, show it to the treating physician, and confirm current recruitment with the study center. Costs, documents and travel →
Unsure about the terms? Read our patient guide →
Official title
Anesthetic Effectiveness of Lidocaine Versus Articaine in Dentistry. A Randomized Clinical Trial
Overview
Context: Lidocaine and articaine are two of the most commonly used local anesthetics in dentistry. Lidocaine has often been the anesthetic of choice in clinical practice, but in clinical experience, articaine has proven to be more effective in controlling pain during dental procedures. (Camps-Font, O. et al. 2020). There are still unanswered questions, such as which of the two local anesthetics is more effective in reducing pain? This could lead us to discuss which one to choose to reduce costs in the dental office. Objective: The objective of this project is to determine and compare the effectiveness of lidocaine and articaine in clinical contexts such as tooth extraction with infiltrative techniques, seeking to provide answers that will optimize the choice of anesthetic based on the patient and the procedure, thus improving pain management and reducing costs in the dental office. Design: Randomized double-blind experimental study, parallel groups. The control group received 2% lidocaine, and the experimental group received 4% articaine. The study will be conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT 2010). The probabilistic sampling technique is through simple randomization. The 100 patients who meet the inclusion criteria will be randomly assigned to the control and experimental groups in a 1:1 ratio. Expected results: articaine shows a lower percentage of extractions with anesthetic reinforcement and, therefore, a lower average number of additional tubes.
Interventions
- Drug lidocaine + epinephrine 1:100,000
Administration of lidocaine as a local anesthetic during dental extraction. - Drug Articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000
Administration of articaine as a local anesthetic during dental extraction.
Primary outcome measures
- Number of tubes [Time frame: immediately after the procedure]
Secondary outcome measures (1)
- Pain during dislocation using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain with a minimum of 0 meaning no pain, and a maximum of 10 meaning the most severe pain ever experienced in life. [Time frame: After the procedure]
Eligibility criteria
Inclusion criteria
- Patients with clinical indications for simple extraction of upper and lower teeth using infiltrative anesthetic techniques.
- Patients without systemic diseases (ASA I)
- Patients with controlled systemic disease (ASA II)
- Patients with no history of hypersensitivity to anesthetics or their components (epinephrine)
- Patients with stable periodontal condition, without active infection that could affect the diffusion of the anesthetic.
- Patients with the ability to understand the procedure and provide informed consent.
Exclusion criteria
- Patients with uncontrolled systemic diseases ASA III and pregnant patients.
- Patients requiring trunk techniques (Gow gates, Spix, Carrea)
- Patients taking medication that affects the anesthetic response (tricyclic antidepressants, anticoagulants)
- Patients with a history of neurological or psychiatric disorders that may influence the perception of pain or anxiety.
- Patients with anatomical abnormalities in the orofacial region that interfere with the administration or action of anesthesia.
- Patients with a history of recent substance abuse.
Criteria are shown verbatim from the registry (in English). Final eligibility is always assessed by the study center.
Healthy volunteers: Yes
Study design
- Allocation
- Randomized
- Model
- Parallel assignment
- Masking
- Double blind
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
Study locations
Chile · 1 center
- CESFAM Dr. Jorge Sabat — Valdivia
Publications
- Halabi D, Escobar J, Alvarado C, Martinez N, Munoz C. Chlorhexidine for prevention of alveolar osteitis: a randomised clinical trial. J Appl Oral Sci. 2018;26:e20170245. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2017-0245. Epub 2018 May 7. PMID 29742264
Identifiers
NCT: NCT07231614 · ArtiVsLido