Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 May;96(21):e6753. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006753.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of 2% lidocaine HCl with different epinephrine concentration for local anesthesia in participants undergoing surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, crossover, phase IV trial.

Author information

1
aDepartment of Dental Anesthesiology bDepartment of Dental Anesthesiology and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University School of Dentistry cDepartment of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul dDepartment of Dental Anesthesiology, Dankook University College of Dentistry, Dankook University, Cheonan-si, Chungnam eDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University and Institute of Translational Dental Sciences, Pusan National University fDepartment of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University and Dental Research Institute, Pusan National University Dental Hospital, Yangsan, Gyeongnam gCollege of Dentistry, Wonkwang University, Iksan city, Jeonbuk hDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dankook University College of Dentistry, Dankook University, Cheonan-si, Chungnam iDepartment of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Kyung Hee University Dental Hospital Kyung Hee University School of Dentistry, Seoul jR&D Center, Huons Co. Ltd., College of Pharmacy, Hanyang University, Ansan-si, Kyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The most commonly impacted tooth is the third molar. An impacted third molar can ultimately cause acute pain, infection, tumors, cysts, caries, periodontal disease, and loss of adjacent teeth. Local anesthesia is employed for removing the third molar. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 or 1:200,000 epinephrine for surgical extraction of bilateral impacted mandibular third molars.

METHODS:

Sixty-five healthy participants underwent surgical extraction of bilateral impacted mandibular third molars in 2 separate visits while under local anesthesia with 2% lidocaine with different epinephrine concentration (1:80,000 or 1:200,000) in a double-blind, randomized, crossover trial. Visual analog scale pain scores obtained immediately after surgical extraction were primarily evaluated for the 2 groups receiving different epinephrine concentrations. Visual analog scale pain scores were obtained 2, 4, and 6 hours after administering an anesthetic. Onset and duration of analgesia, onset of pain, intraoperative bleeding, operator's and participant's overall satisfaction, drug dosage, and hemodynamic parameters were evaluated for the 2 groups.

RESULTS:

There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in any measurements except hemodynamic factors (P >.05). Changes in systolic blood pressure and heart rate following anesthetic administration were significantly greater in the group receiving 1:80,000 epinephrine than in that receiving 1:200,000 epinephrine (P ≤.01).

CONCLUSION:

The difference in epinephrine concentration between 1:80,000 and 1:200,000 in 2% lidocaine liquid does not affect the medical efficacy of the anesthetic. Furthermore, 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine has better safety with regard to hemodynamic parameters than 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine. Therefore, we suggest using 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine rather than 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine for surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars in hemodynamically unstable patients.

PMID:
28538371
PMCID:
PMC5457851
DOI:
10.1097/MD.0000000000006753
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wolters Kluwer Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center