Effects of 4% Articaine vs 2% Lidocaine on IANB for implant surgery

Summaries 2 min 811

Font Size

Created On: 29/05/2023

This trial compared the influence of anesthetics (Lidocaine and Articaine) on inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for posterior mandibular implant surgeries.

See All

Key take away

In people undergoing posterior mandibular implant surgery, both 4% Articaine and 2% Lidocaine provide satisfactory anesthesia for implant application.

Background

This trial compared the influence of anesthetics (Lidocaine and Articaine) on inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for posterior mandibular implant surgeries.

Method

For IANB, the subjects who had posterior mandibular implants were split into Lidocaine group and Articaine group in this randomized controlled trial. The Pearson's chi-squared test, Spearman's coefficient, Mann-Whitney U test, and t-test were used to analyze surgery duration, adjacent teeth, release incision, implant number, bone density, gender, age, mandibular canal-implant apex distance, lip numbness time, and pain during surgery and injection (assessed using visual analog scale [VAS]).

Result

Overall, 1185 dental implants from 577 subjects were examined. With regard to injection and operation VAS values, no discernible difference was noted between the study groups. For the Lidocaine group, the lip numbing time was 3.06±3.22 minutes, whereas, for the Articaine group, it was 2.96±3.09 minutes. For the Articaine recipients, the mandibular canal-implant apex distance was determined to be 2.28±0.75 mm, whereas, for the Lidocaine recipients, it was 2.45±0.86 mm. In comparison to the Lidocaine group (40/325), more release incisions were produced in the Articaine group (51/252).

Conclusion

There was no difference between groups when VAS scale results are assessed for 4% Articaine and 2% Lidocaine in terms of IANB used for the purpose of offering adequate anesthesia in posterior mandible implant surgeries.