Skip to content

Efficacy and Safety of Articaine and Lidocaine in Extraction of Wisdom Teeth of Upper and Lower Jaws

Efficacy and Safety of Articaine and Lidocaine in Extraction of Wisdom Teeth of Upper and Lower Jaws

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05804630
Enrollment
60
Registered
2023-04-07
Start date
2023-03-15
Completion date
2024-07-31
Last updated
2023-04-07

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Dental Impaction, Wisdom Tooth

Keywords

Dental anesthesia, Lidocaine, Articaine, Wisdom tooth, Third molar, Impaction

Brief summary

Local anesthesia drugs and anesthesia technique play an imperative role in dental treatment. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of different dental local anesthetics drugs and brands in clinical use for the extraction of wisdom teeth.

Detailed description

Local anesthesia drugs and anesthesia technique play an imperative role in dental treatment. They are widely used in oral and maxillofacial surgery, endodontic treatment, periodontal treatment, prosthetics and operative dentistry. They not only reduce the pain of the patient during the treatment, but also improve the comfort of the treatment. The most commonly used local anesthetics are Lidocaine and Articaine, whose efficacy and safety have been demonstrated in many literatures: fast-acting, effective in pain control, comfortable, relatively rare allergic reaction, few local and systemic adverse effects. Among the above-mentioned drugs, Articaine is an anesthetic drug that has been developed and become popular in recent years. In the past, literature pointed out that due to the relationship between the drug concentration and structure of Articaine, its ability to penetrate into bone is better than that of Lidocaine. Some studies even believe that local infiltration with Articaine can replace block anesthesia with Lidocaine; which means, on the one hand, it is more comfortable during anesthesia. On the other hand, it can avoid the potential adverse effects of block anesthesia, such as: hematoma formation and systemic adverse effects caused by intravascular injection. For exodontia surgery, a quite common surgery for general dentists and oral surgeons, the most commonly used anesthesia techniques are local infiltration and block anesthesia. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of different dental local anesthetics drugs and brands in clinical use for the extraction of impacted wisdom teeth. Three types of local anesthetics that have been widely used and proven safe were included: 1. Xylestesin-A® (1.7mL/cartridge contains 20mg/mL Lidocaine + 1:80,000 epinephrine) 2. Octocaine® (1.8mL/cartridge contains 20mg/mL Lidocaine + 1:100,000 epinephrine) 3. Orabloc® (1.8mL/cartridge contains 40mg/mL Articaine + 1:100,000 epinephrine) This study will be a randomized split-mouth clinical study, and it will include 60 healthy adult patients aged between 20-60 years old, who are evaluated by a single surgeon to be suitable for extraction or odontectomy of their impacted third molars (upper or lower jaws) under local anesthesia. This study consists of two experiments. The above 60 patients will be randomly assigned to group 1 or 2, using different anesthetic drugs or anesthesia techniques: 1. Group 1: Octocaine® block vs. Xylestesin-A® block 2. Group 2: Orabloc® infiltration vs. Octocaine ® block During the treatment, we will record the patient's subjective anesthesia onset time, the physician's objective anesthesia onset time, the patient's pain scale during surgery, comfort assessment, adverse reactions, postoperative paresthesia, etc. to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these drugs and anesthesia technique.

Interventions

DRUGDifferent dental anesthetic agents during wisdom tooth surgery (Orabloc®, Octocaine®, and Xylestesin-A®)

As mentioned in arm/group descriptions. The amount of dental anesthetic agents used during the surgery will be tailored for patient according to their response, which will not exceed the recommended dosage described in the instruction of the product. The amount of the drug used during the surgery will be recorded.

Sponsors

National Taiwan University Hospital
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Caregiver)

Intervention model description

Split-mouth study design: one dental anesthetic agent at one side (left or right) of mouth and another agent at the other (left or right) side of mouth

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
20 Years to 60 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Adults aged between 20-60 years old * Generally healthy or with well-controlled mild systemic diseases (such as well-controlled hypertension, diabetes, or hyperlipidemia) * Bilateral wisdom teeth with similar difficulty of surgery(according to Pell and Gregory and Winter's classification), which are indicated for surgical removal under local anesthesia

Exclusion criteria

* Known or suspected allergy to amide-type local anesthetic agents * With systemic contraindication for tooth extraction, such as poorly-controlled heart diseases or diabetes, and severe liver or kidney diseases. Patients with systolic blood pressure greater than 150 mmHg or less than 90 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure greater than 100 mmHg or less than 60 mmHg are also excluded * With local contraindication for tooth extraction, such as previous irradiation to the surgical region, acute infection or cellulitis at the surgical region * Patients during pregnancy or lactation * Patients taking analgesic or sedatives in 24 hrs * Intolerant of dental extraction surgery under local anesthesia due to anxiety, dentophobia, or pain

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Hemodynamic measuresRecorded immediate before local anesthesia, immediate after local anesthesia, 5 minutes after local anesthesia and immediate after surgeryIncluding heart rate (HR)
O2 saturation (SpO2)Recorded immediate before local anesthesia, immediate after local anesthesia, 5 minutes after local anesthesia and immediate after surgeryO2 saturation (SpO2)
Pain and satisfaction of the surgeryRecorded immediate after each dental extraction surgeryPain according to VAS (0-10) and satisfaction score (1-5, 1 being the least satisfactory and 5 being the most satisfactory)

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Adverse events of anesthesiaRecorded during and interview the patient immediate after each dental extraction surgerySuch as headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, tachycardia, dyspnea, or post-operative neurosensory disturbance

Countries

Taiwan

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026