Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Buffered 2% articaine versus non-buffered 4% articaine in maxillary infiltration: randomized clinical trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

This randomized, triple-blind, crossover clinical trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy, onset, length of pulp and soft tissue anesthesia, and pain during injection of 2% buffered articaine and 4% non-buffered articaine solutions.

Methods

Each volunteer received two maxillary supraperiosteal anesthesia infiltrations in canine area. The infiltrations were performed at two different sessions using a different local anesthetic solution for each session, and the anesthetic injection speed was always 1 mL/min. The assessment of the onset and length of pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia was performed with the pulp electrical test “pulp tester” and the esthesiometer kit, respectively. Volunteers marked pain during injection on a visual analog scale (VAS). The anesthetics solutions pH was evaluated through the pH meter equipment.

Results

There was no difference between the two anesthetic solutions (onset of soft tissue anesthesia, p = 0.5386; length of soft tissue anesthesia, p = 0.718; onset of pulpal anesthesia, p = 0.747; length of pulpal anesthesia, p = 0.375), except for pain during the injection which was lower when buffered 2% articaine was used (p = 0.001) and the pH. The pH analysis revealed that the solutions differed from one another (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

The 2% buffered articaine solution provided the same anesthetic properties then 4% unbuffered articaine with a great reduction in pain during injection.

Clinical relevance

The possibility of use 2% buffered articaine solution instead of 4% articaine maintaining the same anesthetic properties with a great reduction in pain during injection and half of the anesthetic salt concentration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Malamed S (2019) Handbook of local anesthesia, 7th edn. Elsevier-mosby, St. Louis, Missouri

    Google Scholar 

  2. Malamed SF (2011) Buffering local anesthetics in dentistry. Pulse 44:8–9

    Google Scholar 

  3. Saatchi M, Farhad AR, Shenasa N, Haghighi SK (2016) Effect of sodium bicarbonate buccal infiltration on the success of inferior alveolar nerve block in mandibular first molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a prospective, randomized double-blind study. J Endod 42:1458–1461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.07.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Davies RJ (2003) Buffering the pain of local anaesthetics: a systematic review. Emerg Med 15:81–88. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-2026.2003.00413.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Shyamala M, Ramesh C, Yuvaraj V, Suresh V, SathyaNarayanan R, Balaji TS, Neil Dominic M, Nithin Joseph Jude B (2016) A comparative study between bupivacaine with adrenaline and carbonated bupivacaine with adrenaline for surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molar. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 15:99–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-015-0791-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Al-Sultan F (2004) Effectiveness of pH adjusted lidocaine versus commercial lidocaine for maxillary infiltration anesthesia. Al-Rafidain Dent J 4:34–39. https://doi.org/10.33899/rden.2004.164884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Al-Sultan F, Fathie W, Hamid R (2006) A clinical evaluation on the alkalization of local anesthetic solution in periapical surgery. Al-Rafidain Dent J 6:71–77. https://doi.org/10.33899/rden.2006.40218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kashyap VM, Desai R, Reddy PB, Menon S (2011) Effect of alkalinisation of lignocaine for intraoral nerve block on pain during injection, and speed of onset of anaesthesia. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 49:e72–e75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.04.068

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gupta S, Mandlik G, Padhye MN, Kini YK, Kakkar S, Hire AV (2014) Combating inadequate anesthesia in periapical infections, with sodium bicarbonate: a clinical double blind study. Oral Maxillofac Surg 18:325–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-013-0418-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Warren VT, Fisher AG, Rivera EM, Saha PT, Turner B, Reside G, Phillips C, White RP Jr (2017) Buffered 1% lidocaine with epinephrine is as effective as non-buffered 2% lidocaine with epinephrine for mandibular nerve block. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 75:1363–1366. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOMS.2016.12.045

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Phero JA, Warren VT, Fisher AG, Rivera EM, Saha PT, Reside G, Phillips C, White RP Jr (2017) Buffered 1% lidocaine with epinephrine can be as effective as nonbuffered 2% lidocaine with epinephrine for maxillary field block. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 75:2071–2075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2017.03.032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kung J, McDonagh M, Sedgley CM (2015) Does articaine provide an advantage over lidocaine in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod 41:1784–1794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.07.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kuhn B, Mohr P, Stahl M (2010) Intramolecular hydrogen bonding in medicinal chemistry. J Med Chem 53:2601–2611. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm100087s

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Skjevik ÅA, Haug BE, Lygre H, Teigen K (2011) Intramolecular hydrogen bonding in articaine can be related to superior bone tissue penetration: a molecular dynamics study. Biophys Chem 154:18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpc.2010.12.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shurtz R, Nusstein J, Reader A, Drum M, Fowler S, Beck M (2015) Buffered 4% articaine as a primary buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. J Endod 41:1403–1407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.05.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kämmerer PW, Schneider D, Palarie V, Schiegnitz E, Daubländer M (2017) Comparison of anesthetic efficacy of 2 and 4 % articaine in inferior alveolar nerve block for tooth extraction—a double-blinded randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 21:397–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1804-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hintze A, Paessler L (2006) 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. Clin Oral Investig 10:145–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-005-0025-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Malamed SF, Tavana S, Falkel M (2013) Faster onset and more comfortable injection with alkalinized 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000. Compend Contin Educ Dent 34(1):10–20

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Guo J, Yin K, Roges R et al (2018) Efficacy of sodium bicarbonate buffered versus non-buffered lidocaine with epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve block: a meta-analysis. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 18:129. https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2018.18.3.129

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Catchlove RF (1972) The influence of CO 2 and pH on local anesthetic action. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 181:298–309

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Condouris G, Shakalis A (1964) Potentiation of the nerve-depressant effect of local anaesthetics by carbon dioxide. Nature 204:57–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Phero JA, Nelson B, Davis B, Dunlop N, Phillips C, Reside G, Tikunov AP, White RP Jr (2017) Buffered versus non-buffered lidocaine with epinephrine for mandibular nerve block: clinical outcomes. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 75:688–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2016.09.055

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pate DA, Shimizu I, Akin R, Snodgrass K, Emrick A (2016) Safety of prefilled buffered lidocaine syringes with and without epinephrine. Dermatologic Surg 42:361–365. https://doi.org/10.1097/DSS.0000000000000624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Goodchild JH, Donaldson M (2016) Comparing the pH change of local anesthetic solutions using two chairside buffering techniques. Compend Contin Educ Dent 37:e6–e12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The corresponding author acknowledges the Department of Dentistry of the Federal University of Sergipe.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pharmacology, Anesthesiology and Therapeutics Department, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, 901 Limeira Avenue, Piracicaba, São Paulo, 13414-903, Brazil

    Klinger Souza Amorim, Anne Caroline Gercina & Francisco Carlos Groppo

  2. Oral surgery and anesthesiology area of Dentistry Department, Federal University of Sergipe, St Cláudio Batista, Cidade Nova, Aracaju, Sergipe, 49060-108, Brazil

    Vanessa Tavares Silva Fontes & Liane Maciel Almeida Souza

Authors
  1. Klinger Souza Amorim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vanessa Tavares Silva Fontes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anne Caroline Gercina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Francisco Carlos Groppo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Liane Maciel Almeida Souza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Klinger de Souza Amorim, Vanessa Tavares Silva Fontes, and Anne Caroline Gercina. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Vanessa Tavares Silva Fontes and Klinger de Souza Amorim. Conceptualization, Klinger de Souza Amorim and Liane Maciel de Almeida Souza; Methodology, Francisco Carlos Groppo and Liane Maciel de Almeida Souza. Formal analysis, Francisco Carlos Groppo. Investigation, Klinger de Souza Amorim, Vanessa Tavares Silva Fontes, and Anne Caroline Gercina. Writing, original draft preparation: Vanessa Tavares Silva Fontes, Anne Caroline Gercina, and Klinger de Souza Amorim. Writing, review and editing: Anne Caroline Gercina and Klinger de Souza Amorim. Supervision, Liane Maciel de Almeida Souza. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vanessa Tavares Silva Fontes.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Klinger de Souza Amorim declares that he has no conflict of interest. Vanessa Tavares Silva Fontes declares that she has no conflict of interest. Anne Caroline Gercina declares that she has no conflict of interest. Francisco Carlos Groppo declares that he has no conflict of interest and Liane Maciel de Almeida Souza declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This clinical trial was approved by the Sergipe Federal University Human Health Research Ethics Committee (CAAE: 02582018.9.0000.5546), additionally, it was submitted to Rebec (RBR-8yyzzz).

Informed consent

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

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Amorim, K.S., Fontes, V.T.S., Gercina, A.C. et al. Buffered 2% articaine versus non-buffered 4% articaine in maxillary infiltration: randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Invest 25, 3527–3533 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03674-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03674-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation