Scholarlink

Objective <p>To compare buffered 1% articaine/epinephrine 1:400,000 to unbuffered 4% articaine/epinephrine 1:200,000, the efficacy, onset, and duration of both pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia, as well as pain during puncture and injection, were evaluated.</p> Methods <p>Clinical trial designed as a crossover, double-blind, randomized study. Forty-one volunteers received supra-periosteal infiltrative local anesthesia in the upper canine region across two sessions, using 1.8 mL of different anesthetic solutions. The onset and duration of pulpal anesthesia were assessed using the electric pulp test, while soft tissue pain thresholds were evaluated with a pressure esthesiometer. Pain scores during puncture and discomfort during injection were recorded using the visual analog scale (VAS). All researchers, volunteers, and the statistician were blinded to the treatment allocations.</p> Results <p>No significant differences (Wilcoxon, p 0.05) were observed between the two anesthetic solutions regarding the onset and duration of soft tissue anesthesia or the duration of pulpal anesthesia. However, the onset of pulpal anesthesia was significantly longer (p = 0.036) for the buffered 1% articaine. Unbuffered 4% articaine resulted in greater pain during injection (p = 0.001).</p> Conclusions <p>The buffered solution of 1% articaine with epinephrine 1:400,000 showed comparable anesthetic properties and reduced discomfort during injection compared to the commercial 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:200,000.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparison of the Efficacy of Maxillary Infiltration with Buffered 1% Articaine Versus Non-buffered 4% Articaine in Healthy Volunteers: A Double-Blinded, Randomized Crossover Study

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月24日

查看全文
  • Júlia Mori Gomide,
  • Anne Caroline Gercina Carvalho Dantas,
  • Sidney Raimundo Figueroba,
  • Amanda de Jesus Medeiros,
  • Daniel Felipe Fernandes Paiva,
  • Camila Batista da Silva de Araújo Cândido,
  • Francisco Carlos Groppo,
  • Klinger de Souza Amorim

摘要

Objective

To compare buffered 1% articaine/epinephrine 1:400,000 to unbuffered 4% articaine/epinephrine 1:200,000, the efficacy, onset, and duration of both pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia, as well as pain during puncture and injection, were evaluated.

Methods

Clinical trial designed as a crossover, double-blind, randomized study. Forty-one volunteers received supra-periosteal infiltrative local anesthesia in the upper canine region across two sessions, using 1.8 mL of different anesthetic solutions. The onset and duration of pulpal anesthesia were assessed using the electric pulp test, while soft tissue pain thresholds were evaluated with a pressure esthesiometer. Pain scores during puncture and discomfort during injection were recorded using the visual analog scale (VAS). All researchers, volunteers, and the statistician were blinded to the treatment allocations.

Results

No significant differences (Wilcoxon, p 0.05) were observed between the two anesthetic solutions regarding the onset and duration of soft tissue anesthesia or the duration of pulpal anesthesia. However, the onset of pulpal anesthesia was significantly longer (p = 0.036) for the buffered 1% articaine. Unbuffered 4% articaine resulted in greater pain during injection (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

The buffered solution of 1% articaine with epinephrine 1:400,000 showed comparable anesthetic properties and reduced discomfort during injection compared to the commercial 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:200,000.