|
KMID : 0362720180560010042
|
|
Journal of the Korean Dental Association
2018 Volume.56 No. 1 p.42 ~ p.48
|
|
|
Efficacy and safety of 2% lidocaine HCl with 1:200,000 epinephrine
|
|
Karm Myong-Hwan
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION 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 two
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 analogue scale pain scores obtained immediately after surgical extraction were primarily evaluated for the two groups receiving different epinephrine concentrations. Visual analogue scale pain scores obtained 2, 4, and 6 h 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 two groups.
RESULTS There were no statistically significant differences between the two 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.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Epinephrine, Hemodynamics, Lidocaine, Local Anesthesia, Third Molar
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
|
|