The Efficacy of 4% Articaine Versus 2% Lidocaine in Inducing Palatal Anesthesia for Tooth Extraction in Different Maxillary Regions.

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to ascertain the efficacy of buccal injection of articaine compared to lidocaine in inducing palatal anesthesia in different maxillary regions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This double-blinded, randomized clinical trial included 300 patients who referred for extraction of 1 maxillary tooth. The patients were categorized into 3 strata according to the extraction area (anterior, premolar, molar), and then randomly assigned to 2 groups based on the administered medication. The first group received buccal infiltration by 0.6 mL of 2% lidocaine, whereas the second group was buccally administered using 0.6 mL of 4% articaine. After a waiting period of 2 minutes, the failure or success in achieving palatal anesthesia was assessed by the instrumentation technique. In cases of failed anesthesia, an additional 0.6 mL of the same anesthetic was given, and the procedure was repeated if palatal anesthesia was not attained after a 2-minute delay. If pain remained 2 minutes after the third injection, a supplemental palatal infiltration was administered and the extraction was attempted. RESULTS: The success rate of buccal infiltration in achieving palatal anesthesia was 82.7% in the articaine group and 1.3% in the lidocaine group. There was a significant difference in the success rate and drug volume required to induce palatal anesthesia between the 2 groups (P < .001), but no significant difference was found between different maxillary regions, using either of the medications (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Articaine can be considered as a suitable alternative to lidocaine for eliminating painful palatal infiltration in the extraction of maxillary teeth.