The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 10 ( October, 2020 ) > List of Articles


Efficacy of 2% Lignocaine and 4% Articaine in Oral Surgical Procedure: A Comparative Study

Kunal Kumar, Revati Singh, Sudhanshu Kumar, Jyoti Gupta, Akshay Kumar, Amit Verma

Keywords : Articaine, Lignocaine, Local anesthesia

Citation Information : Kumar K, Singh R, Kumar S, Gupta J, Kumar A, Verma A. Efficacy of 2% Lignocaine and 4% Articaine in Oral Surgical Procedure: A Comparative Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (10):1146-1149.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2883

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 08-01-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Aim and objective: To compare the efficacy of 2% lignocaine and 4% articaine in the extraction of mandibular molars. Materials and methods: This study was conducted on 120 patients requiring surgical removal of tooth. Patients were categorized into 2 groups with 60 samples each. Group I patients were administered 2% lignocaine with 1:50,000 epinephrine and group II patients were administered 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for the extraction of mandibular molar. Inferior alveolar nerve, lingual, and buccal nerve block used in both groups to anesthetize the area. Results: The mean onset of action in group I was 85.2 seconds and in group II was 52.6 seconds, duration of anesthesia in group I was 170.2 minutes and in group II was 226.8 minutes, duration of procedure was 30.4 minutes in group I and 32.6 minutes in group II, pain during procedure in group I was 2.75 and in group II was 1.42, pain after procedure was 1.41 in group I and 0.82 in group II, pain during anesthesia insertion was 1.52 in group I and 1.04 in group II. Forty-six (76.7%) patients in group I and 52 (86.7%) patients in group II did not require re-anesthesia, while 12 (20%) in group I and 8 (13.3%) in group II required 1 time re-anesthesia and 2 (3.3%) patients required 2 times re-anesthesia in group I. Conclusion: Articaine can be effectively used in oral surgical procedures as there is early onset of action, longer duration of anesthesia, and less need of re-anesthesia. Clinical significance: Articaine is more effective compared to lignocaine, hence it can be recommended alternatively for tooth extraction and other oral surgical procedures.

PDF Share
  1. Bansal SK, Kaura S, Sangha PK, et al. Comparison of anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lignocaine. Indian J Dent Sci 2018;10(2):92–97. DOI: 10.4103/IJDS.IJDS_126_17.
  2. da Silva-Junior GP, de Almeida Souza LM, Groppo FC. Comparison of articaine and lidocaine for buccal infiltration after inferior alveolar nerve block for intraoperative pain control during impacted mandibular third molar surgery. Anesthesia progress 2017;64(2): 80–84. DOI: 10.2344/anpr-64-02-06.
  3. Boonsiriseth K, Chaimanakarn S, Chewpreecha P, et al. 4% lidocaine versus 4% articaine for inferior alveolar nerve block in impacted lower third molar surgery. Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine 2017;17(1):29–35. DOI: 10.17245/jdapm.2017.17.1.29.
  4. Bhagat MJ, Narayan V, Muthusekhar MR, et al. Comparative study of the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lignocaine in the inferior alveolar nerve block during the surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. Univ Res J Dent 2014;4:108–114. DOI: 10.4103/2249-9725.132975.
  5. Zhang A, Tang H, Liu S, et al. Anesthetic efficiency of articaine versus lidocaine in the extraction of lower third molars: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;77(1):18–28. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2018.08.020.
  6. Managutti A, Prakasam M, Puthanakar N, et al. Comparative analysis of local anesthesia with 2 different concentrations of adrenaline: a randomized and single blind study. J Int Oral Health 2015;7(3):24.
  7. Gazal G. Is articaine more potent than mepivacaine for use in oral surgery? J Oral Maxillofac Res 2018;9(3):e5. DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2018.9305.
  8. Jain NK, John RR. Anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lignocaine during the surgical removal of the third molar: A comparative prospective study. Anesth Essays Res 2016;10(2): 356–361. DOI: 10.4103/0259-1162.171445.
  9. Maruthingal S, Mohan D, Maroli RK, et al. A comparative evaluation of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine in mandibular buccal infiltration anesthesia: A clinical study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2015;5(6):463–469. DOI: 10.4103/2231-0762.167717.
  10. Aakanksha KM, Jain S, Gupta M, et al. Comparative evaluation of anaesthetic efficacy of lidocaine and articaine in third molar surgery. J Adv Med Dent Scie Res 2018;6(2):19–21.
  11. Ghosh A, Basu S, Maity C, et al. Efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline as an effective alternative for achieving anesthesia during dental extraction. Indian J Dent Sci 2019;11:189–195.
  12. Kulkarni S, Parkar MI. Use of 2% lignocaine with two different dilutions of epinephrine in the extraction of mandibular anteriors and premolars. International J Appl Dent Sci 2018;4(4):247–250.
  13. Kambalimath DH, Dolas RS, Kambalimath HV, et al. Efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine: a clinical study. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg 2013;12(1):3–10. DOI: 10.1007/s12663-012-0368-4.
  14. Kumar PD, Sharma M, Patil V, et al. Anesthetic efficacy of single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine and 2% lignocaine in extraction of maxillary 1st molar. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2019;9(2):239–246. DOI: 10.4103/ams.ams_201_18.
  15. Saraf SP, Saraf PA, Kamatagi L, et al. A comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of articaine 4% and lidocaine 2% with anterior middle superior alveolar nerve block and infraorbital nerve block: An in vivo study. J Conserv Dent 2016;19:527–531. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.194021.
  16. Rebolledo AS, Molina ED, Aytés LB, et al. 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(2):E139–E144.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.