Buccal Infiltration of Different Volumes of Articaine for Extraction.

Qassim University

Status: Enrolling

Conditions: Articaine; Buccal Infiltration; Anesthesia

Treatments: Other: 1.8 ml of 4% Articaine; Other: 3.6 ml of 4% Articaine

Study type: Interventional

Funder types: Other

Identifiers

NCT06630819

608/45/14624

Details and patient eligibility

About

This study compares the effectiveness of two different volumes of buccal infiltration of Articaine for the extraction of mandibular posterior teeth. One group receives buccal infiltration of 1.8 ml of 4% Articaine and the other group receives buccal infiltration of 3.6 ml of 4% Articaine.

Full description

The most widely and commonly used injection method for the extraction of mandibular posterior teeth is the inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) technique. However, various complications like pain during injection, transient facial nerve paralysis, trismus, hematoma, and paresthesia are associated with the inferior alveolar nerve block technique.

Local infiltration technique has been proven as a safer and less painful anesthetic injection technique compared to IANB. Unfortunately, the dense nature of cortical bone in the mandibular posterior region hinders sufficient diffusion of anesthetic solution during infiltration. Thus, to achieve an adequate anesthesia for a painless dental extraction of mandibular posterior teeth by infiltration technique, a strong and effective local anesthetic agent having a deeper penetrating property should be used.

Articaine is one of the most widely used local anesthetic agents. It is more potent and has shown more success rate than Lidocaine and Mepivacaine in providing anesthesia in mandibular and maxillary posterior teeth by buccal infiltration diffusibility.

This study compares the effectiveness of two different volumes of buccal infiltration of Articaine for the extraction of mandibular posterior teeth.

Enrollment: 114 estimated patients

Sex: All

Ages: 18+ years old

Volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

• All healthy patients (ASA I) or patients with mild systemic disease with no functional limitations (ASA II)
• Patients aged ≥ 18 years of age.
• Patients requiring extraction of mandibular posterior teeth including grossly decayed tooth, grade I mobile tooth, root stumps and indicated for therapeutic reasons.
• Patients not allergic to the drugs or anesthetic agents used in the surgery.

Exclusion criteria

• Acute infection at the extraction site.
• Patients indicated for surgical extraction of teeth.
• Patients already taking medications affecting pain assessment.
• Pregnant patients.

Trial design

Primary purpose: Treatment

Allocation: Randomized

Interventional model: Parallel Assignment

Masking: Single Blind

---

114 participants in 2 patient groups

Group A

Experimental group

Description:

Buccal infiltration of 3.6 ml of 4% Articaine

Treatment:

Other: 3.6 ml of 4% Articaine

Group B

Active Comparator group

Description:

Buccal infiltration of 1.8 ml of 4% Articaine

Treatment:

Other: 1.8 ml of 4% Articaine