Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Clinical
  • Published:

Is blocking with Articaine better than Lidocaine?

BDJ Student volume 27, pages 40–42 (2020)Cite this article

By Emily McIlvanna

Restorative and surgical dentistry requires effective local pain management to ensure patient comfort and relaxation. Local anaesthetics are the most commonly used pharmaceuticals in dentistry and there are various options to choose from in primary care; including lidocaine, articaine, prilocaine, mepivacaine and bupivacaine. Buccal infiltrations are mainly used to anaesthetise individual maxillary teeth and mandibular incisors with good success.1 By comparison, the inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) is common practice for anaesthetising mandibular molars and premolars on one side of the jaw and is very technique sensitive.1

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Bartlett G and Mansoor J. Articaine buccal infiltration vs lidocaine inferior dental block - a review of the literature. Br Dent J 2016; 220: 117-120.

  2. Stirrup P and Crean S. Does articaine, rather than lidocaine, increase the risk of nerve damage when administered for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients undergoing local anaesthesia for dental treatment? A mini systematic review of the literature. Br Dent J 2019; 226: 213-223.

  3. Haas D A and Lennon D. A 21 year retrospective study of reports of paresthesia following local anesthetic administration. J Can Dent Assoc 1995; 61: 319-320.

  4. Kambalimath D H, Dolas R S, Kambalimath H V, Agrawal S M. Efficacy of 4 % Articaine and 2 % Lidocaine: A clinical study. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2013; 12: 3-10.

  5. Martínez-Rodríguez N, Barona-Dorado C, Martín-Arés M, Cortés-Bretón-Brinkman J, Martínez-González JM. Evaluation of the anaesthetic properties and tolerance of 1:100,000 articaine versus 1:100,000 lidocaine. A comparative study in surgery of the lower third molar. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011; 17: 345-351.

  6. Shruthi R, Kedarnath N, Mamatha N, Rajaram P, Bhadrashetty D. Articaine for surgical removal of impacted third molar; a comparison with lignocaine. J Int Oral Health 2013; 5: 48-53.

  7. 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 Oral Cir Bucal 2007; 12: 139-144.

  8. Tae-Yun I, Kyung-Gyun H, Chang-Joo P, Kwang-Soo K, Young O, Ji-Young H, Kwang-Sup S. Randomized, Double-blind, Comparative Clinical Trial on the Efficacy of 4% Articaine and 2% Lidocaine in Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Anesthesia. J Korean Dent Soc Anesthesiol 2010; 10: 1-6.

  9. Gaffen A S, Haas D A. Retrospective review of voluntary reports of nonsurgical paresthesia in dentistry. J Can Dent Assoc 2009; 75: 579.

  10. Hillerup S, Jensen, R. Nerve injury caused by mandibular block analgesia. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 35: 437-443.

  11. Progrel M A. Permanent nerve damage from inferior alveolar nerve blocks--an update to include articaine. J Calif Dent Assoc 2007; 35: 271-273.

  12. Progrel MA. Permanent nerve damage from inferior alveolar nerve blocks: a current update. J Calif Dent Assoc 2012; 40: 795-797.

  13. Malamed S F, Gagnon S, Leblanc D. Articaine hydrochloride: a study of the safety of a new amide local anesthetic. J Am Dent Assoc 2001; 132: 177-185.

  14. Hillerup S, Bakke M, Larsen J O, Thomsen C E, Gerds T E. Concentration-dependent neurotoxicity of articaine: an electrophysiological and stereological study of the rat sciatic nerve. Anesth Analg 2011; 112: 1330-1338.

  15. Wright E F. Medial pterygoid trismus (myospasm) following inferior alveolar nerve block: case report and literature review. Gen Dent 2011; 59: 64-67.

  16. Barodiya A, Thukral R, Agrawal SM, Rai A, Singh S. Temporary Blindness after Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block. J Clin Diagn Res 2017; 11: ZD24-ZD25.

  17. Malamed S F. Is the mandibular nerve block passé? J Am Dent Assoc 2011; 142: 3S-7S.

  18. El-Kholey K E. Anesthetic Efficacy of 4% Articaine During Extraction of the Mandibular Posterior Teeth by Using Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block and Buccal Infiltration Techniques. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2017; 16: 90-95.

  19. Renton T. Oral surgery: part 4. Minimising and managing nerve injuries and other complications. Br Dent J 2013; 215: 393-399.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Royal Victoria Hospital, 274 Grosvenor Rd, BT12 6BN, Belfast, UK

    Emily McIlvanna

Authors
  1. Emily McIlvanna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily McIlvanna.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McIlvanna, E. Is blocking with Articaine better than Lidocaine?. BDJ Student 27, 40–42 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41406-020-0140-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41406-020-0140-z

Search

Advanced search

Quick links