Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial on analgesic efficacy of local anesthetics articaine and bupivacaine after impacted third molar extraction

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) was to compare the effect of bupivacaine and articaine at habitual doses on pain intensity and the need for analgesics after lower third molar extraction.

Materials and methods

The final study sample comprised 50 Caucasian volunteers (26 males and 24 females; age range, 18–30 years) undergoing scheduled surgical extraction of impacted lower third molar. A computer-generated random sequence was used to allocate participants to the articaine (4%) or bupivacaine (0.5%) group. Surgeons and patients were blinded by labeling the articaine and bupivacaine carpules with numbers (1 and 2, respectively). Postoperative pain intensity (primary outcome) was evaluated with a visual analogue scale (VAS), while the requirement for and timing of rescue medication and the quality of intraoperative anesthesia were also measured (secondary outcomes).

Results

VAS-measured pain intensity was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the articaine group than in the bupivacaine group at all time points except for 8 h post-surgery (p = 0.052). Rescue medication was required by 13 (52%) patients in the articaine group and 8 (32%) patients in the bupivacaine group, although the difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.252). The groups did not significantly differ (p = 0.391) in the quality of the intraoperative anesthesia.

Conclusions

Bupivacaine is a valid alternative to articaine in third molar surgery and may offer residual anesthesia as a means of reducing postoperative pain. However, further well-designed RCTs are required in larger study populations to verify the effectiveness of bupivacaine to achieve residual analgesia after oral surgery.

Clinical relevance

These findings suggest that bupivacaine may be useful as a coadjuvant to control acute postoperative pain.

Trial registration

ACTRN12617001138370

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hill CM, Balkenohl M, Thomas DW, Walker R, Mathé H, Murray G (2001) Pregabalin in patients with postoperative dental pain. Eur J Pain Lond Engl 5:119–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Golembiewski JA (2007) Postoperative pain management—is there a role for gabapentin or pregabalin? J Perianesth Nurs 22:136–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kang S-H, Choi Y-S, Byun I-Y, Kim M-K (2010) Effect of preoperative prednisolone on clinical postoperative symptoms after surgical extractions of mandibular third molars. Aust Dent J 55:462–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Paech MJ, Goy R, Chua S, Scott K, Christmas T, Doherty DA (2007) A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of preoperative oral pregabalin for postoperative pain relief after minor gynecological surgery. Anesth Analg 105:1449–1453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ghaeminia H, Perry J, Nienhuijs MEL, Toedtling V, Tummers M, Hoppenreijs TJM, van der Sanden WJM, Mettes TG, Cochrane Oral Health Group (2016) Surgical removal versus retention for the management of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD003879. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003879.pub4

  6. Cooper SA (1988) Ketoprofen in oral surgery pain: a review. J Clin Pharmacol 28:S40–S46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Urquhart E (1994) Analgesic agents and strategies in the dental pain model. J Dent 22:336–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Su N, Li C, Wang H, Shen J, Liu W, Kou L (2016) Efficacy and safety of articaine versus lidocaine for irreversible pulpitis treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Aust Endod J 42:4–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Malamed SF (2006) Local anesthetics: dentistry’s most important drugs, clinical update 2006. J Calif Dent Assoc 34:971–976

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kumar R, Rao SN (2000) Local anaesthetic for minor oral surgical procedures. Review. Indian J Dent Res 11:163–166

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sisk AL (1992) Long-acting local anesthetics in dentistry. Anesth Prog 39:53–60

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Trullenque-Eriksson A, Guisado-Moya B (2011) Comparative study of two local anesthetics in the surgical extraction of mandibular third molars: bupivacaine and articaine. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 16:e390–e396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Milam SB, Giovannitti JA (1984) Local anesthetics in dental practice. Dent Clin N Am 28:493–508

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gargallo Albiol J, Herráez Vilas JM, BeriniAytés L, Gay Escoda C (1996) Bases de la utilización de la bupivacaína en cirugía e implantología bucal. Av Odontoestomatol 12:43–48

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fernandez C, Reader A, Beck M, Nusstein J (2005) A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of bupivacaine and lidocaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks. J Endod 31:499–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Danielsson K, Evers H, Nordenram A (1985) Long-acting local anesthetics in oral surgery: an experimental evaluation of bupivacaine and etidocaine for oral infiltration anesthesia. Anesth Prog 32:65–68

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Volpato MC, Ranali J, Ramacciato JC, de Oliveira PC, Ambrosano GMB, Groppo FC (2005) Anesthetic efficacy of bupivacaine solutions in inferior alveolar nerve block. Anesth Prog 52:132–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Moore RA, Straube S, Wiffen PJ, Derry S, McQuay HJ, Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group (2009) Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD007076. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007076.pub2

  19. Pellicer-Chover H, Cervera-Ballester J, Sanchis-Bielsa JM, Penarrocha-Diago MA, Penarrocha-Diago M, Garcia-Mira B (2013) Comparative split-mouth study of the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 0.5% bupivacaine in impacted mandibular third molar extraction. J Clin Exp Dent 5:e66–e71. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.50869

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Sancho-Puchades M, Vílchez-Pérez M-Á, Valmaseda-Castellón E et al (2012) Bupivacaine 0.5% versus articaine 4% for the removal of lower third molars. A crossover randomized controlled trial. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 17:e462–e468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Vílchez-Pérez M-A, Sancho-Puchades M, Valmaseda-Castellón E et al (2012) A prospective, randomized, triple-blind comparison of articaine and bupivacaine for maxillary infiltrations. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 17:e325–e330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG (2010) CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340:c869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dodson TB (2006) Predictors of dental implant survival. J Mass Dent Soc 54:34–38

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Olmedo-Gaya MV, Manzano-Moreno FJ, Galvez-Mateos R, González-Rodriguez MP, Talero-Sevilla C, Vallecillo-Capilla M (2016) Oral pregabalin for postoperative pain relief after third molar extraction: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 20:1819–1826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chapman PJ, Macleod AW (1985) A clinical study of bupivacaine for mandibular anesthesia in oral surgery. Anesth Prog 32:69–72

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Aggarwal V, Singla M, Miglani S (2017) Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of 2% lidocaine, 4% articaine, and 0.5% bupivacaine on inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. J Oral Facial Pain Headache 31:124–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Thakare A, Bhate K, Kathariya R (2014) Comparison of 4% articaine and 0.5% bupivacaine anesthetic efficacy in orthodontic extractions: prospective, randomized crossover study. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwanica 52:59–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Oomens MAEM, Verlinden CRA, Goey Y, Forouzanfar T (2014) Prescribing antibiotic prophylaxis in orthognathic surgery: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 43:725–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Oomens MAE, Forouzanfar T (2012) Antibiotic prophylaxis in third molar surgery: a review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 114:e5–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2011.10.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The work was supported by the Master Course of Oral Surgery and Implant Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Granada, Spain.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Stomatology, School of Dentistry, University of Granada, Colegio Máximo s/n, 18071, Granada, Spain

    Maria Victoria Olmedo-Gaya, Francisco Javier Manzano-Moreno, Manuel Francisco Vallecillo-Capilla & Candela Reyes-Botella

  2. Biomedical Group (BIO277), University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Francisco Javier Manzano-Moreno & Candela Reyes-Botella

  3. Instituto Investigación Biosanitaria, ibs.Granada, Granada, Spain

    Francisco Javier Manzano-Moreno & Candela Reyes-Botella

  4. Master of Oral Surgery and Implant Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Jose Luis Muñoz-López

Authors
  1. Maria Victoria Olmedo-Gaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francisco Javier Manzano-Moreno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jose Luis Muñoz-López
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Manuel Francisco Vallecillo-Capilla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Candela Reyes-Botella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francisco Javier Manzano-Moreno.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the ethical committee of the University of Granada and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Olmedo-Gaya, M.V., Manzano-Moreno, F.J., Muñoz-López, J.L. et al. Double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial on analgesic efficacy of local anesthetics articaine and bupivacaine after impacted third molar extraction. Clin Oral Invest 22, 2981–2988 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2386-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2386-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation