Efficacy of Differents Anaesthetics in Mandibular Third Molar Germectomy

Local Anesthetic Efficacy Clinical Trial

Official title:

Comparative Study of the Anaesthetic Efficacy of 4% Articaine Versus 2% Mepivacaine in Mandibular Third Molar Germectomy Using Different Anaesthetic Techniques: a Split-mouth Clinical Trial

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT04465149
• Other study ID #: SecondUNI-1
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: June 30, 2018
• Est. completion date: April 20, 2020

Study information

• Verified date: July 2020
• Source: University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli"
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

Aim: To compare the clinical efficacy of local anaesthetics with articaine 4% or mepivacaine 2% (both with epinephrine 1:100.000) using different anaesthetic techniques to perform germectomy of lower third molars and to assess patients' feelings and pain during surgery.

Methods: 50 patients (ranged 11-16 years) who required germectomy of mandibular third molars were recruited. Each patient received local anaesthesia on one side with articaine inoculated with plexus technique while on the other side with mepivacaine using inferior alveolar nerve block technique. The patients' evaluation was performed on pre and intraoperative tactile-pressure feelings and intraoperative pain with four levels on the analogic visual scale (VAS).

Description:

The surgical extraction of a tooth that exhibits at least a third of its root in formation, with a periodontal ligament discernible on panoramic x-ray, is defined as germectomy. Early germectomy is a usefull intervention to avoid problems caused by lower third molar retention and impaction, and it is often required before or after orthodontic treatment. This surgical technique would also allow to avoid complications, such as inferior alveolar and lingual nerve damage.

The control of the patient's pain and anxiety by using local anaesthesia is essential in oral surgery: these aspects become more important in adolescents, above all in the case of third molar germectomy. Local anaesthetic (LA) injection is often the only painfull part of the dental procedure, and the fear associated with this technique is the main reason that leads patients to avoid dental treatment.

During the execution of dental surgical procedures, anaesthesia of the structures innervated by the mandibular nerve is necessary, and many local anaesthetic techniques are described in the literature. Generally, infiltration plexus technique is usually performed for maxillary procedures while IANB is used for molar mandibular sites with 2% local anaesthetics. Failure rates for IANB are high, sometimes reaching 80% for the lower incisors with this technique, and numerous approaches for the implementation of a new technique of IANB have been described. Among them, the articaine 4% already has been successfully used to achieve local anesthesia and facial infiltration anaesthetic technique in the mandible showed efficacy with encouraging result that can be overlapped to the IANB technique. Articaine (4-methyl-3-[2-(propylamino)-propionamido]-2-thiophene-carboxylic acid, methyl ester hydrochloride) contains a thiophene ring instead of benzene and an ester group. The thiophene ring allows for higher lipid solubility so a greater portion of an administered dose can enter in neurons. Gazal found that a combination of nerve block anaesthesia, buccal infiltration and intra-ligamentary injection resulted in more profound anaesthesia (P =0.003) and higher success rates compared to IANB alone in mandibular first molar pulp anaesthesia. Other studies reported the use of articaine in implantology interventions in which it was used with subperiosteal technique on the buccal and vestibular sides.

Thus, the literature showed several conflicting results on the mandibular facial plexus infiltration technique used with different anesthetics.

Recent studies of this anaesthetic technique found that 1.8 cc of 4% articaine facial infiltration in the mandible can be effective when the thickness of mandibular facial cortex is < 2.0-3.0 mm, with 5-10 minutes needed for the adequate anaesthesia.

It was reported that many dental procedures on deciduous molars could be accomplished with infiltration of articaine alone in the pediatric population.

As above mentioned, the difficulty in achieving reliable anaesthesia in the third mandibular molars in adults with facial infiltration of local anaesthetic is related to the thickness of the cortical bone and inability to achieve consistently inferior alveolar nerve.

An ideal local anaesthetic should have the following characteristics:

1. short latency time;

2. strength of the intense effect;

3. duration of prolonged action;

4. lack of harmful local and systemic effects. Currently, mepivacaine is among the most used and studied anaesthetics in dentistry; however, articaine is nowadays increasingly used for its manageability, lack of side effects and high anaesthetic potency. Mepivacaine is an amide-type anaesthetic with fast action from the beginning and 30-120 minutes duration. Its maximum allowed dose is 300 mg with epinephrine or 500 mg alone. The dose for children is 4-6 mg/kg/dose (maximum: 270 mg) without epinephrine.

Articaine, due to its chemical characteristics, is quickly soluble and rapidly released from adipose/lipid tissue. The ester side chain of articaine is hydrolyzed by plasmaesterases rendering the molecule inactive. Evidence suggests that it is the local anaesthetic that best spreads within soft and hard tissues. Then, it has a non-conducive effect on extended operations having a shorter half-life of 25 minutes compared to approximately 90 minutes of other amides (115 minutes for mepivacaine) that require hepatic clearance. Accordingly, it was suggested that articaine does not own any relevant side effects or systemic toxicities.

For this reason, articaine has been used at higher concentrations (4%), associated with epinephrine, compared to other local dental anesthetics. This higher concentration ensures an excellent spread both in hard and soft tissues, also promoted by a pKa very similar to the physiological pH of tissues. Its great liposolubility allows a rapid diffusion in adipose tissue (spread coefficient = 17,0) and involves a lower adherence to the nerve membranes and, above all, lower toxicity for the tissues. Moreover, articaine has a high protein-based bond (94%) which allows a better affinity for the protein-based membrane receptors, and it is a direct sign of its increased anaesthetic potency.

Dental local anaesthetics are often combined with vasoconstrictors, such as epinephrine, to increase the depth and duration of analgesia. Clinical experiments, in which articaine without vasoconstrictor was used, did not show any satisfying results, whereas the use of articaine combined with low concentrations of vasoconstrictors produced better anaesthetic effects than other common local anaesthetics such as bupivacaine and mepivacaine. It is well documented that vasoconstrictors have a safety range if used at low doses, and not directly injected in the blood vessels, even in particular care patients.

The present study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of articaine 4% (epinephrine 1:100.000) versus mepivacaine 2% (epinephrine 1:100.000) for the surgical germectomy of mandibular third molars with two different conventional anaesthetic techniques in young patients whom jawbone is not completely mineralized yet and more penetrable by the articaine molecule.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 50
• Est. completion date: April 20, 2020
• Est. primary completion date: October 31, 2019
• Accepts healthy volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
• Gender: All
• Age group: 11 Years to 16 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Patients requiring bilateral germectomy of mandibular third molars before orthodontic treatment

Exclusion Criteria:

• Patients presenting systemic and oral diseases

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Local Anesthetic Efficacy

Intervention

Procedure:
• Third Molar Germectomy
Surgical extraction of Third Molars that exhibits at least a third of its root in formation, with a periodontal ligament discernible on panoramic x-ray (defined as germectomy).

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
Italy	University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli	Napoli

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli"

Country where clinical trial is conducted

Italy, 

References & Publications (38)

Abazarpoor R, Parirokh M, Nakhaee N, Abbott PV. A Comparison of Different Volumes of Articaine for Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block for Molar Teeth with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis. J Endod. 2015 Sep;41(9):1408-11. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.05.015. Epub — View Citation

Almpani K, Kolokitha OE. Role of third molars in orthodontics. World J Clin Cases. 2015 Feb 16;3(2):132-40. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v3.i2.132. Review. — View Citation

Becker DE, Reed KL. Local anesthetics: review of pharmacological considerations. Anesth Prog. 2012 Summer;59(2):90-101; quiz 102-3. doi: 10.2344/0003-3006-59.2.90. Review. — View Citation

Bjørnland T, Haanaes HR, Lind PO, Zachrisson B. Removal of third molar germs. Study of complications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1987 Aug;16(4):385-90. — View Citation

Chiapasco M, Crescentini M, Romanoni G. [The extraction of the lower third molars: germectomy or late avulsion?]. Minerva Stomatol. 1994 May;43(5):191-8. Italian. — View Citation

Corbett IP, Kanaa MD, Whitworth JM, Meechan JG. Articaine infiltration for anesthesia of mandibular first molars. J Endod. 2008 May;34(5):514-8. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.02.042. — View Citation

Cowan A. Clinical assessment of a new local anesthetic agent-carticaine. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1977 Feb;43(2):174-80. — View Citation

Dudkiewicz A, Schwartz S, Laliberté R. Effectiveness of mandibular infiltration in children using the local anesthetic Ultracaine (articaine hydrochloride). J Can Dent Assoc. 1987 Jan;53(1):29-31. — View Citation

Eccleston C. Role of psychology in pain management. Br J Anaesth. 2001 Jul;87(1):144-52. Review. — View Citation

Flanagan DF. The effectiveness of articaine in mandibular facial infiltrations. Local Reg Anesth. 2015 Dec 18;9:1-6. doi: 10.2147/LRA.S94647. eCollection 2016. — View Citation

Gazal G, Fareed WM, Zafar MS. Role of intraseptal anesthesia for pain-free dental treatment. Saudi J Anaesth. 2016 Jan-Mar;10(1):81-6. doi: 10.4103/1658-354X.169482. Review. — View Citation

Gazal G. Comparison of speed of action and injection discomfort of 4% articaine and 2% mepivacaine for pulpal anesthesia in mandibular teeth: A randomized, double-blind cross-over trial. Eur J Dent. 2015 Apr-Jun;9(2):201-206. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.156811 — View Citation

Gunter JB. Benefit and risks of local anesthetics in infants and children. Paediatr Drugs. 2002;4(10):649-72. Review. — View Citation

Heller AA, Shankland WE 2nd. Alternative to the inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia when placing mandibular dental implants posterior to the mental foramen. J Oral Implantol. 2001;27(3):127-33. — View Citation

Jastak JT, Yagiela JA. Vasoconstrictors and local anesthesia: a review and rationale for use. J Am Dent Assoc. 1983 Oct;107(4):623-30. Review. — View Citation

Kämmerer PW, Palarie V, Daubländer M, Bicer C, Shabazfar N, Brüllmann D, Al-Nawas B. Comparison of 4% articaine with epinephrine (1:100,000) and without epinephrine in inferior alveolar block for tooth extraction: double-blind randomized clinical trial of — View Citation

Kaufman E, Epstein JB, Naveh E, Gorsky M, Gross A, Cohen G. A survey of pain, pressure, and discomfort induced by commonly used oral local anesthesia injections. Anesth Prog. 2005 Winter;52(4):122-7. — View Citation

Khoury J, Townsend G. Neural blockade anaesthesia of the mandibular nerve and its terminal branches: rationale for different anaesthetic techniques including their advantages and disadvantages. Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2011;2011:307423. doi: 10.1155/2011/30 — View Citation

Leith R, Lynch K, O'Connell AC. Articaine use in children: a review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2012 Dec;13(6):293-6. Review. — View Citation

Leuschner J, Leblanc D. Studies on the toxicological profile of the local anaesthetic articaine. Arzneimittelforschung. 1999 Feb;49(2):126-32. — View Citation

Malamed SF. Is the mandibular nerve block passé? J Am Dent Assoc. 2011 Sep;142 Suppl 3:3S-7S. — View Citation

Meechan JG. The use of the mandibular infiltration anesthetic technique in adults. J Am Dent Assoc. 2011 Sep;142 Suppl 3:19S-24S. Review. — View Citation

Milgrom P, Coldwell SE, Getz T, Weinstein P, Ramsay DS. Four dimensions of fear of dental injections. J Am Dent Assoc. 1997 Jun;128(6):756-66. — View Citation

Mittal M, Sharma S, Kumar A, Chopra R, Srivastava D. Comparison of Anesthetic Efficacy of Articaine and Lidocaine During Primary Maxillary Molar Extractions in Children. Pediatr Dent. 2015 Nov-Dec;37(7):520-4. — View Citation

Pabst L, Nusstein J, Drum M, Reader A, Beck M. The efficacy of a repeated buccal infiltration of articaine in prolonging duration of pulpal anesthesia in the mandibular first molar. Anesth Prog. 2009 Winter;56(4):128-34. doi: 10.2344/0003-3006-56.4.128. — View Citation

Pellicer-Chover H, Cervera-Ballester J, Sanchis-Bielsa JM, Peñarrocha-Diago MA, Peñarrocha-Diago M, García-Mira B. Comparative split-mouth study of the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 0.5% bupivacaine in impacted mandibular third molar extracti — View Citation

Perillo L, Vitale M, d'Apuzzo F, Isola G, Nucera R, Matarese G. Interdisciplinary approach for a patient with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018 Jun;153(6):883-894. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.12.035. — View Citation

Ram D, Peretz B. Administering local anaesthesia to paediatric dental patients -- current status and prospects for the future. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2002 Mar;12(2):80-9. Review. — View Citation

Ramadurai N, Gurunathan D, Samuel AV, Subramanian E, Rodrigues SJL. Effectiveness of 2% Articaine as an anesthetic agent in children: randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2019 Sep;23(9):3543-3550. doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2775-5. Epub 2018 Dec — View Citation

Raucci G, Pachêco-Pereira C, Elyasi M, d'Apuzzo F, Flores-Mir C, Perillo L. Short- and long-term evaluation of mandibular dental arch dimensional changes in patients treated with a lip bumper during mixed dentition followed by fixed appliances. Angle Orth — View Citation

Rayati F, Noruziha A, Jabbarian R. Efficacy of buccal infiltration anaesthesia with articaine for extraction of mandibular molars: a clinical trial. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Sep;56(7):607-610. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2018.06.012. Epub 2018 Jul 3. — View Citation

Saxena P, Gupta SK, Newaskar V, Chandra A. Advances in dental local anesthesia techniques and devices: An update. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Jan;4(1):19-24. doi: 10.4103/0975-5950.117873. Review. — View Citation

Sierra Rebolledo A, Delgado Molina E, Berini Aytís L, Gay Escoda C. Comparative study of the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine in inferior alveolar nerve block during surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars. Med Oral Patol — View Citation

Srisurang S, Narit L, Prisana P. Clinical efficacy of lidocaine, mepivacaine, and articaine for local infiltration. J Investig Clin Dent. 2011 Feb;2(1):23-8. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-1626.2010.00035.x. Epub 2010 Nov 8. — View Citation

Tófoli GR, Ramacciato JC, de Oliveira PC, Volpato MC, Groppo FC, Ranali J. Comparison of effectiveness of 4% articaine associated with 1: 100,000 or 1: 200,000 epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve block. Anesth Prog. 2003;50(4):164-8. — View Citation

Vigen EC, Lasse A. Articaine hydrochloride: is it the solution?. Dent Update. 2015 Jun;42(5):493. — View Citation

Vree TB, Gielen MJ. Clinical pharmacology and the use of articaine for local and regional anaesthesia. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2005 Jun;19(2):293-308. Review. — View Citation

Wright GZ, Weinberger SJ, Marti R, Plotzke O. The effectiveness of infiltration anesthesia in the mandibular primary molar region. Pediatr Dent. 1991 Sep-Oct;13(5):278-83. — View Citation

* Note: There are 38 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Discomfort/Pain felt for anesthetic injection valued by the Patient on a Visual Analogue Scale	Once performed the injections, patients were asked to notice on a visual analogue scale, how much discomfort they felt due to the anaesthetic injections, indicating one of the following values: 0 absent; mild; moderate; severe	At the beginning of Surgery
Secondary	Test during the Surgery	The same test was repeated intraoperatively	After 10/15 minutes