Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 100–105 | Cite as

Comparison of Local Anaesthetic Efficacy of Tramadol Versus Lignocaine for Extraction of Tooth Under Supraperiosteal Infiltration

  • Shoeb Kasim Jendi
  • Ahmed M. Syed
  • Sheeraz Badal
  • Amol Doiphode
  • Sandesh S. Chougule
  • Sameer A. Shaikh
  • Ahmed Ahtesham
Original Article



Tramadol has been shown to have a local anaesthetic effect when used as infiltration anaesthesia.


The local anaesthetic efficacy of tramadol was compared with that of lignocaine for the extraction of teeth in terms of their onset of action, duration of action, intraoperative pain, post-operative analgesic effect and adverse reactions. Apart from this, incidence of allergic reaction was also recorded for both the drugs. A total of 100 patients were divided into two groups randomly. Each patient was assigned to receive either a maximum of 2 ml of 5% tramadol (Supridol 50 mg, Neon laboratories), Group T (n = 50), as a local anaesthetic solution for extraction of maxillary premolar for orthodontic reason under supraperiosteal infiltration following strict aseptic precaution or a maximum of 2 ml of 2% lignocaine (Lox 2%, Neon laboratories), Group L (n = 50), in a double-blinded fashion.


In group T, the mean subjective onset of action was 33.66 s, while in group L it was 33.06 s (p = 0.881). In group T, the mean objective onset of action was 3.04 min, while in group L it was 3.18 min (p > 0.05). The mean duration of action in group T was 55.60 min, while in group L it was 57.50 min (p = 0.432). Only 2 patients in group T and 1 patient in group L had nausea (p = 0.245).


We conclude that 5% tramadol has a local anaesthetic efficacy similar to 2% lignocaine but is comparatively a weaker agent.


Tramadol Lignocaine Local anaesthesia Supraperiosteal infiltration 



The authors are grateful to Dr. Gopal Nagargoje, Dr. Priyanka Tapsale and Mrs Bhagyashree Chopade for their assistance during the clinical procedures and Dr. Ketan Lipare for providing the relevant literature.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study (involving human participants) were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    World Health Organization (2014) Tramadol update review report.
  2. 2.
    Grond S, Sablotzki A (2004) Clinical pharmacology of tramadol. Clin Pharmamacokinet 43(13):879–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pang WW, Mok MS, Chang DP, Huang MH (1998) Local anesthetic effect of tramadol, metoclopramide, and lidocaine following intradermal injection. Reg Anesth Pain Med 23(6):580–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Al-Haideri YAA (2013) Comparison of local anesthetic efficacy of tramadol hydrochloride (with adrenaline) versus plain tramadol hydrochloride in the extraction of upper molar teeth. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 71:2035–2038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Altunkaya H, Ozer Y, Kargi E, Babuccu O (2003) Comparison of local anaesthetic effects of tramadol with prilocaine for minor surgical procedures. Br J Anaesth 90(3):320–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bennett CR (1990) Monheim’s local anesthesia and pain control in dental practice, 7th edn. B.C.Decker, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Staiman A, Seeman P (1974) The impulse-blocking concentrations of anesthetics, alcohols, anticonvulsants, barbiturates, and narcotics on phrenic and sciatic nerves. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 52:535–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brau ME, Koch ED, Vogel W, Hempelmann G (2000) Tonic blocking action of meperidine on Na+ and K+ channels in amphibian peripheral nerves. Anesthesiology 92(1):147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mert T, Gunes Y, Ozcengiz D, Gunay I, Polat S (2006) Comparative effects of lidocaine and tramadol on injured peripheral nerves. Eur J Pharmacol 543:54–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haeseler G, Foadi N, Ahrens J, Dengler R, Hecker H, Leuwer M (2006) Tramadol, fentanyl and sufentanil but not morphine block voltage-operated sodium channels. Pain 126:234–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dalkilic N, Tuncer S, Bariskaner H, Kiziltan E (2009) The effect of tramadol on the rat sciatic nerve conduction: a numerical analysis and conduction velocity distribution study. Yakugaku Zasshi 129(4):485–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jaffe RA, Rowe MA (1996) A comparison of the local anesthetic effects of meperidine, fentanyl and sufentanil on dorsal root axons. Anesth Analg 83:776–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pang WW, Huang PY, Chang DP, Huang MH (1999) The peripheral analgesic effect of tramadol in reducing propofol injection pain: a comparison with lidocaine. Reg Anesth Pain Med 24(3):246–249Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tsai YC, Chang PJ, Jou IM (2001) Direct tramadol application on sciatic nerve inhibits spinal somatosensory evoked potentials in rats. Anesth Analg 92:1547–1551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mert T, Gunes Y, Guven M, Gunay I, Ozcengiz D (2001) Blocking action of tramadol on nerve conduction. Intern J Pharmacol 1(2)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mert T, Gunes Y, Guven M, Gunay I, Ozcengiz D (2002) Comparison of nerve conduction blocks by an opioid and a local anaesthetic. Eur J Pharmacol 439:77–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Altunkaya H, Ozer Y, Kargi E, Ozkocak I, Hosnuter M, Demirel CB, Babuccu O (2004) The postoperative analgesic effect of tramadol when used as subcutaneous local anesthetic. Anesth Analog 99:1461–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guven M, Mert T, Gunay I (2005) Effects of tramadol on nerve action potentials in rat: comparisons with benzocaine and lidocaine. Intern J Neurosci 115:339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alsandook TA, Haideri YAA (2013) A pilot double blinded clinical trial to compare between tramadol HCl and lidocaine HCl as local anaesthesia amongst hospital-outpatient adult dental attendees Mosul-Iraqi. J Oral Res 1(1):13–16Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mert T, Gunes Y, Gunay I (2007) Local analgesic efficacy of tramadol following intraplantar injection. Eur J Pharmacol 558:68–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Becker DE, Reed KL (2006) Essential of local anesthetic pharmacology. Anesth Prog 53:98–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kargi E, Babuccu O, Altunkaya H, Hosnuter M, Ozer Y, Babuccu B, Payasli C (2008) Tramadol as a local anaesthetic in tendon repair surgery of the hand. J Intern Med Res 36:971–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vahabi S, Heidari M, Ahmedinejad M, Akhlaghi J, Birjandi M (2011) Comparison of local anesthetic effects of tramadol and lidocaine used subcutaneously in minor surgeries with local anesthesia. Middle East J Anaesthesiol 21(1):9–13Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Malamed SF (2013) Handbook of local anesthesia, 6th edn. Mosby, St.LouisGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scott LJ, Perry CM (2000) Tramadol: a review of its use in perioperative pain. Drugs 60(1):139–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shoeb Kasim Jendi
    • 1
  • Ahmed M. Syed
    • 2
  • Sheeraz Badal
    • 2
  • Amol Doiphode
    • 2
  • Sandesh S. Chougule
    • 2
  • Sameer A. Shaikh
    • 2
  • Ahmed Ahtesham
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Yogita Dental College and HospitalKhedIndia
  2. 2.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryMaharashtra Institute of Dental Sciences and Research Dental College and HospitalLaturIndia

Personalised recommendations