Efficacy and Safety of 2% and 4% Articaine for Lower Third Molar Surgery.

This double-blind crossover randomized clinical trial compared the efficacy of 2 concentrations of articaine, 2% (A2) and 4% (A4), with 1:200,000 epinephrine, for lower third molar removal. During 2 separate appointments with either A2 or A4, both similarly positioned lower third molars in 46 volunteers were extracted. The following were evaluated: onset and duration of anesthetic action on soft tissues, intraoperative bleeding, hemodynamic parameters, postoperative analgesia, and mouth opening and wound healing during the 7th postoperative day, along with the incidence, type, and severity of adverse reactions. Nearly identical volumes of both anesthetic solutions were used for each appointment: 3.4 ± 0.9 mL ≈ 68 mg of articaine (A2) and 3.3 ± 0.8 mL ≈ 132 mg of articaine (A4). Statistical analysis indicated no differences in onset or duration of anesthetic action on soft tissues or duration of postoperative analgesia evoked by A2 and A4 anesthetic solutions (P > 0.05). The surgeon's rating of intraoperative bleeding was considered minimal throughout all surgery with both anesthetic solutions. While transient changes in blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation were observed, these factors were clinically insignificant and were uninfluenced by articaine concentration (P > 0.05). No systemic or local adverse reactions were observed in the preoperative and postoperative periods due to A2 or A4, but 1 case of bilateral paresthesia was observed. There were no significant differences between preoperative and postoperative (7th day) values of mouth opening and wound healing whether volunteers received A2 or A4 (P > 0.05). In conclusion, both A2 and A4, administered in equal volumes, were effective and safe during lower third molar surgery, and no significant differences were found between their efficacy and safety (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02457325).

Comparison of oral versus sublingual piroxicam during postoperative pain management after lower third molar extraction.

In this study, 53 patients received piroxicam, administered orally or sublingually, after undergoing removal of symmetrically positioned lower third molars, during two separate appointments. This study used a randomized, blind, cross-over protocol. Objective and subjective parameters were recorded for comparison of postoperative results for 7 days after surgery. Patients treated with oral or sublingual piroxicam reported low postoperative pain scores. The patients who received piroxicam orally took a similar average amount of analgesic rescue medication compared with patients who received piroxicam sublingually (p>0.05). Patients exhibited similar values for mouth opening measured just before surgery and immediately following suture removal 7 days later (p>0.05), and showed no significant differences between routes of piroxicam administration for swelling control during the second or seventh postoperative days (p>0.05). In summary, pain, trismus and swelling after lower third molar extraction, independent of surgical difficulty, could be controlled by piroxicam 20mg administered orally or sublingually and no significant differences were observed between the route of delivery used in this study.