Comparison of injection pain, heart rate increase, and postinjection pain of articaine and lidocaine in a primary intraligamentary injection administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system.
(9/44)
The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the pain of injection, heart rate increase, and postinjection pain of the intraligamentary injection of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system. Using a crossover design, intraligamentary injections of 1.4 mL of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 1.4 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine were randomly administered on the mesial and distal aspects of the mandibular first molar with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system in a double-blind manner at 2 separate appointments to 51 subjects. The results demonstrated the incidence of moderate pain was 14%-27% with needle insertion, with 0%-4% reporting severe pain. For solution deposition, moderate pain was reported 8%-18% of the time, with no reports of severe pain. There were no significant differences between the articaine and lidocaine solutions. Regarding heart rate changes, neither anesthetic solution resulted in a significant increase in heart rate over baseline readings. On day 1 postinjection, there was a 31% incidence of moderate/severe pain with the articaine solution and 20% incidence of moderate/severe pain with the lidocaine solution. The moderate/severe pain ratings decreased over the next 2 days. There were no significant differences between the articaine and lidocaine solutions. We concluded that the intraligamentary injection of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was similar to 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for injection pain and postinjection pain in the mandibular first molar when administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system. For both anesthetic solutions, heart rate did not significantly increase with the intraligamentary injection using the computer-controlled local anesthetic system. (+info)
Hyperbaric articaine for day-case spinal anaesthesia.
(10/44)
BACKGROUND: Articaine and lidocaine are clinically very similar suggesting that articaine could be suitable for day-case spinal anaesthesia. A dose-response study with articaine in ambulatory spinal anaesthesia was therefore performed. METHODS: In this randomized double-blind study, 90 day-case surgery patients received spinal anaesthesia with 60 mg (A60), 84 mg (A84) or 108 mg (A108) of hyperbaric articaine hydrochloride. Sensory block was tested with pinprick and motor block on a modified Bromage scale. A structured interview was performed on the first and seventh postoperative days. RESULTS: Sensory block reached the T10 dermatome in a median (range) of 5 (5-10) and was maintained at this level for 70 (35-145), 70 (15-115) and 85 (20-115) min in the A60, A84 and A108 groups, respectively. Six patients in the A108 group, two in the A84 group and one in the A60 group had maximum spread of analgesia to T(1) or higher (NS). Patients in the A108 group needed more medication for hypotension (P=0.018), had more often nausea and vomiting (P=0.027), took oral fluids later (P=0.031) and both sensory block recovery [median (range)] [2.5 (2-4.5) h] (P=0.017) and motor block recovery [2 (1.3-4) h] (P=0.009) were delayed. No patients in the A108 group needed opioid intraoperatively while fentanyl was needed in 5 (17%) and 2 (7%) patients in the A60 and A84 groups, respectively. Discharge criteria were attained in approximately 4.5 h after articaine injection (NS) and no drug-related sequelae were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperbaric articaine 60 and 84 mg resulted in spinal anaesthesia allowing surgery of the lower extremities for about 1 h. Recovery was rapid. Use of 108 mg of articaine is not recommended because of frequent extensive cephalad spread of the block, accompanied by arterial hypotension and nausea. (+info)
Essentials of local anesthetic pharmacology.
(11/44)
It is impossible to provide effective dental care without the use of local anesthetics. This drug class has an impressive history of safety and efficacy, but all local anesthetics have the potential to produce significant toxicity if used carelessly. The purpose of this review is to update the practitioner on issues regarding the basic pharmacology and clinical use of local anesthetic formulations. (+info)
Comparative study of the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine in inferior alveolar nerve block during surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars.
(12/44)
BACKGROUND: A comparative study is made of the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine, both with epinephrine 1:100,000, in truncal block of the inferior alveolar nerve during the surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized double-blind clinical trial was conducted of 30 patients programmed for the bilateral surgical extraction of symmetrical lower third molars in the context of the Master of Oral Surgery and Implantology (University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain). Following the obtainment of informed consent, two operators performed surgery on an extemporaneous basis, using as local anesthetic 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine with the same concentration of vasoconstrictor (epinephrine 1:100,000). The study variables for each anesthetic were: latency (time to action) and duration of anesthetic effect, the amount of anesthetic solution used, and the need of re-anesthetize the surgical zone. A visual analog scale was used to assess pain during surgery, and thus subjectively evaluate the anesthetic efficacy of the two solutions. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences (p = 0.003) were observed in the mean duration of anesthetic effect (220.86 min. for 4% articaine vs. 168.20 min. for 2% lidocaine). Latency, the amount of anesthetic solution and the need to re-anesthetize the surgical field showed clinical differences in favor of articaine, though statistical significance was not reached. The pain scores indicated similar anesthetic efficacy with both solutions. CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained suggest that 4% articaine offers better clinical performance than 2% lidocaine, particularly in terms of latency and duration of the anesthetic effect. However, no statistically significant differences in anesthetic efficacy were recorded between the two solutions. (+info)
Effects of articaine on action potential characteristics and the underlying ion currents in canine ventricular myocytes.
(13/44)
BACKGROUND: In spite of its widespread clinical application, there is little information on the cellular cardiac effects of articaine. In the present study, the concentration-dependent effects of articaine on action potential morphology and the underlying ion currents were studied in isolated canine ventricular cardiomyocytes. METHODS: Action potentials were recorded from the enzymatically dispersed myocytes using sharp microelectrodes (16 cells from 3 dogs). Conventional patch clamp and action potential voltage clamp arrangements were used to study the effects of articaine on transmembrane ion currents (37 cells from 14 dogs). RESULTS: Articaine-induced concentration-dependent changes in action potential configuration including shortening of the action potentials, reduction of their amplitude and maximum velocity of depolarization (V(max)), suppression of early repolarization and depression of plateau. The EC50 value obtained for the V(max) block was 162 (sd 30) microM. Both the reduction of V(max) and action potential shortening were frequency dependent: the former was more prominent at shorter, while the latter at longer pacing cycle lengths. A rate dependent V(max) block, having rapid offset kinetics [tau = 91 (20) ms], was observed in addition to tonic block. Under voltage clamp conditions, a variety of ion currents were blocked by articaine: I(Ca) [EC50 = 471 (75) microM], I(to) [EC50 = 365 (62) microM], I(K1) [EC50 = 372 (46) microM], I(Kr) [EC50 = 278 (79) microM], and I(Ks) [EC50 = 326 (65) microM]. Hill coefficients were close to unity indicating a single binding site for articaine, except for I(K1). CONCLUSIONS: Articaine can modify cardiac action potentials and ion currents at concentrations higher than the therapeutic range which can be achieved only by accidental venous injection. Since its suppressive effects on the inward and outward currents are relatively well balanced, the articaine-induced changes in action potential morphology may be moderate even in the case of overdose. (+info)
Analysis of the antimicrobial activity of local anaesthetics used for dental analgesia.
(14/44)
Seven local anaesthetics and their active anaesthetic components [Ultracaine D-S (articaine hydrochloride), Carbostesin (bupivacaine hydrochloride), Scandicaine (mepivacaine hydrochloride), Xylonest (prilocaine hydrochloride), Xylocaine (lidocaine hydrochloride), Hostacaine (butanilicaine phosphate) and Novocaine (procaine hydrochloride)] were tested for their antimicrobial activity against 311 bacterial strains from 52 different species and 14 Candida albicans strains. The tested pathogens were members of the oral flora, and partly members of the skin and intestinal flora. Additionally, the antimicrobial activity of methyl-4-hydroxybenzoate, sodium disulfite, adrenaline hydrogen tartrate and adrenaline (the preservative and vasoconstrictive components of the anaesthetics) was tested. For determination of MIC and minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC), the agar dilution method using Wilkins-Chalgren agar was applied. The trade preparation Ultracaine D-S showed the most prominent antimicrobial activity with regard to both MIC and MBC. Ultracaine D-S and its active substance, articaine hydrochloride, showed similar MIC values, suggesting that the antimicrobial activity is mainly caused by the anaesthetic component. Novocaine showed the lowest antimicrobial activity and did not inhibit 35 of the species tested. The MIC values of all local anaesthetics were between 0.25 and 16 mg ml(-1). The routinely applied concentration of Ultracaine D-S was roughly four times higher, and of Hostacaine was two times higher, than the MBC values for the tested bacteria, whereas for the other anaesthetics, the MBC values were not reached or exceeded with the concentrations used. The MIC range of the preservatives was 0.5-1.0 mg ml(-1) for methyl-4-hydroxybenzoate and 0.2-0.5 mg ml(-1) for sodium disulfite. The articaine MIC values were two to three serial dilution steps lower, and the butanilicaine MIC values one to two serial dilution steps lower, than the MIC of the preservatives. The mepivacaine mean MIC values were slightly lower for Fusobacterium nucleatum, Prevotella intermedia, Porphyromonas gingivalis and Staphylococcus aureus, but higher for Streptococcus intermedius, compared with the preservative methyl-4-hydroxybenzoate. The same result was found with Streptococcus intermedius and lidocaine. Screening of 20 MIC values of 4 pure anaesthetic substances and the corresponding preservative found 2/20 instances where the MICs of the preservatives against 5 representative species (67 strains) were lower, indicating that the antimicrobial effect was mainly due to the preservative, but 18/20 results where the pure anaesthetic component showed greater antimicrobial effects compared with the preservative. The in vitro results for Carbostesin, Scandicaine and especially for Novocaine indicate that a local disinfection should be done prior to injection of the anaesthetics. Due to the results obtained with nosocomial strains (Escherichia coli, S. aureus and Pseudomonas), disinfection of the mucous membranes should be performed routinely in immunocompromised patients, regardless of the anaesthetic used. (+info)
Spinal anaesthesia with articaine 5% vs bupivacaine 0.5% for day-case lower limb surgery: a double-blind randomized clinical trial.
(15/44)
BACKGROUND: A local anaesthetic with fast onset and short reliable duration of anaesthesia may be preferable for out-patient lower limb surgery. Articaine is believed to act faster and to have a shorter duration of action than bupivacaine, but there are no conclusive data available. The purpose of this study was to compare articaine and bupivacaine for day-case lower limb surgery. METHODS: Eighty patients planned for day-case lower limb surgery enrolled in this study. Patients were randomized to receive hyperbaric articaine 80 mg or plain bupivacaine 15 mg intrathecally. Primary outcome variable was recovery time from motor block. Secondary outcomes were: onset of sensory and motor block, maximum spread of sensory block, time to micturition, discharge from the hospital, and complications. RESULTS: The groups were comparable for the medians and the range of the maximum blocks after 30 min. Median time to complete regression of motor block was 101 min (range 80-129) for articaine compared with 307 min (range 225-350) for bupivacaine (P<0.0005). First spontaneous micturition occurred after 257 min (210-293) in the articaine group and after 350 min (304-370) in the bupivacaine group (P<0.0005). In the articaine and bupivacaine groups, patients were discharged after 300 min (273-347) and 380 min (332-431), respectively (P<0.0005). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of complications between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal anaesthesia with 80 mg of hyperbaric articaine has a shorter duration than a spinal anaesthesia with 15 mg of plain bupivacaine in lower limb surgery of approximately 1 h duration. (+info)
A comparison of injection pain with articaine with adrenaline, prilocaine with phenylpressin and lidocaine with adrenaline.
(16/44)
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to investigate the pain on injection of articaine with adrenaline, prilocaine with phenylpressin , and lidocaine with adrenaline. STUDY DESIGN: The study sample was comprised of 497 consecutively seen patients received 497 maxillary buccal infiltration injections or inferior alveolar block injections of 4% articaine with 1:200.000 adrenaline, 3% prilocaine with 1.08 mcg phenylpressin, or 2% lidocaine with 1:100.000 adrenaline. Immediately after the injection, patients were asked to rate their injection pain on a six-point scale. RESULTS: There were no significant differences among the anesthetic solutions for injection pain. Patients usually reported mild or no injection pain for all of anesthetic administrations. CONCLUSION: Under the conditions of this study that lidocaine with adrenaline, articaine with adrenaline and prilocaine with phenylpressin seemed to be similar for pain on injection and they could be quite painless. (+info)