Comparing Articaine and Mepivacaine Without Palatal Injection in Pain Assessment During Maxillary Teeth Extraction

Comparing the Effect of 4% Articaine and 2% Mepivacaine Without Palatal Injection in Pain Assessment During Maxillary Teeth Extraction- A Randomized Clinical Trial

This study compares the the efficacy of buccal infiltration of 4% Articaine and 2% Mepivacaine without any palatal injection during extraction of maxillary teeth. One group of patient receives buccal infiltration of Articaine and another group receives buccal infiltration of Mepivacaine.

Dense local anesthesia is required to reduce pain during extraction of tooth. Administration of local anesthesia to the palatal mucosa is proved to be the most painful due to its firm adherence to the underlying periosteum and also it's abundant nerve supply. Articaine has greater lipid solubility and high bone penetration property. Mepivacaine is proven to be the safest local anaesthetic agent. Avoidance of a palatal injection during extraction will benefit the patient by reducing pain and anxiety to a greater extent.

So this study compares the bone penetration property between Articaine and Mepivacaine by assessing the pain in the palatal mucosa while extracting the tooth using only buccal infiltration.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Patients aged 18 years and above
• Patients requiring extraction of maxillary teeth which are grossly decayed, grade I mobile, root stumps or indicated for therapeutic extractions.
• Healthy patients ( ASA I ) or patients with mild systemic disease with no functional limitations (ASA II).
• Patients who are not allergic to the drugs used in the study

Exclusion Criteria:

• Patients with periapical infections.
• Patients who are on concurrent treatment with NSAIDs and corticosteroids