NCT04465149

Brief Summary

Aim: To compare the clinical efficacy of local anaesthetics with articaine 4% or mepivacaine 2% (both with epinephrine 1:100.000) using different anaesthetic techniques to perform germectomy of lower third molars and to assess patients' feelings and pain during surgery. Methods: 50 patients (ranged 11-16 years) who required germectomy of mandibular third molars were recruited. Each patient received local anaesthesia on one side with articaine inoculated with plexus technique while on the other side with mepivacaine using inferior alveolar nerve block technique. The patients' evaluation was performed on pre and intraoperative tactile-pressure feelings and intraoperative pain with four levels on the analogic visual scale (VAS).

Trial Health

87
On Track

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
50

participants targeted

Target at P25-P50 for not_applicable

Timeline
Completed

Started Jun 2018

Typical duration for not_applicable

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
completed

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

Study Start

First participant enrolled

June 30, 2018

Completed
1.3 years until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

October 31, 2019

Completed
6 months until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

April 20, 2020

Completed
17 days until next milestone

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

May 7, 2020

Completed
2 months until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

July 9, 2020

Completed
Last Updated

July 9, 2020

Status Verified

July 1, 2020

Enrollment Period

1.3 years

First QC Date

May 7, 2020

Last Update Submit

July 7, 2020

Conditions

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

  • Discomfort/Pain felt for anesthetic injection valued by the Patient on a Visual Analogue Scale

    Once performed the injections, patients were asked to notice on a visual analogue scale, how much discomfort they felt due to the anaesthetic injections, indicating one of the following values: 0 absent 1. mild 2. moderate 3. severe

    At the beginning of Surgery

Secondary Outcomes (1)

  • Test during the Surgery

    After 10/15 minutes

Study Arms (1)

Patients

EXPERIMENTAL

Patients who required germectomy of mandibular third molars. Each patient received local anaesthesia on one side with articaine inoculated with plexus technique while on the other side with mepivacaine using inferior alveolar nerve block technique.

Procedure: Third Molar Germectomy

Interventions

Surgical extraction of Third Molars that exhibits at least a third of its root in formation, with a periodontal ligament discernible on panoramic x-ray (defined as germectomy).

Patients

Eligibility Criteria

Age11 Years - 16 Years
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersYes
Age GroupsChild (0-17)

You may qualify if:

  • Patients requiring bilateral germectomy of mandibular third molars before orthodontic treatment

You may not qualify if:

  • Patients presenting systemic and oral diseases

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli

Napoli, 80131, Italy

Location

Related Publications (38)

  • Perillo L, Vitale M, d'Apuzzo F, Isola G, Nucera R, Matarese G. Interdisciplinary approach for a patient with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018 Jun;153(6):883-894. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.12.035.

  • Raucci G, Pacheco-Pereira C, Elyasi M, d'Apuzzo F, Flores-Mir C, Perillo L. Short- and long-term evaluation of mandibular dental arch dimensional changes in patients treated with a lip bumper during mixed dentition followed by fixed appliances. Angle Orthod. 2016 Sep;86(5):753-60. doi: 10.2319/073015-519.1. Epub 2016 Jan 15.

  • Chiapasco M, Crescentini M, Romanoni G. [The extraction of the lower third molars: germectomy or late avulsion?]. Minerva Stomatol. 1994 May;43(5):191-8. Italian.

  • Rayati F, Noruziha A, Jabbarian R. Efficacy of buccal infiltration anaesthesia with articaine for extraction of mandibular molars: a clinical trial. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Sep;56(7):607-610. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2018.06.012. Epub 2018 Jul 3.

  • Almpani K, Kolokitha OE. Role of third molars in orthodontics. World J Clin Cases. 2015 Feb 16;3(2):132-40. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v3.i2.132.

  • Bjornland T, Haanaes HR, Lind PO, Zachrisson B. Removal of third molar germs. Study of complications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1987 Aug;16(4):385-90. doi: 10.1016/s0901-5027(87)80072-3.

  • Eccleston C. Role of psychology in pain management. Br J Anaesth. 2001 Jul;87(1):144-52. doi: 10.1093/bja/87.1.144.

  • Gunter JB. Benefit and risks of local anesthetics in infants and children. Paediatr Drugs. 2002;4(10):649-72. doi: 10.2165/00128072-200204100-00003.

  • Milgrom P, Coldwell SE, Getz T, Weinstein P, Ramsay DS. Four dimensions of fear of dental injections. J Am Dent Assoc. 1997 Jun;128(6):756-66. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1997.0301.

  • Kaufman E, Epstein JB, Naveh E, Gorsky M, Gross A, Cohen G. A survey of pain, pressure, and discomfort induced by commonly used oral local anesthesia injections. Anesth Prog. 2005 Winter;52(4):122-7. doi: 10.2344/0003-3006(2005)52[122:ASP]2.0.CO;2.

  • Khoury J, Townsend G. Neural blockade anaesthesia of the mandibular nerve and its terminal branches: rationale for different anaesthetic techniques including their advantages and disadvantages. Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2011;2011:307423. doi: 10.1155/2011/307423. Epub 2011 May 25.

  • Flanagan DF. The effectiveness of articaine in mandibular facial infiltrations. Local Reg Anesth. 2015 Dec 18;9:1-6. doi: 10.2147/LRA.S94647. eCollection 2016.

  • Saxena P, Gupta SK, Newaskar V, Chandra A. Advances in dental local anesthesia techniques and devices: An update. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Jan;4(1):19-24. doi: 10.4103/0975-5950.117873.

  • Meechan JG. The use of the mandibular infiltration anesthetic technique in adults. J Am Dent Assoc. 2011 Sep;142 Suppl 3:19S-24S. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2011.0343.

  • Malamed SF. Is the mandibular nerve block passe? J Am Dent Assoc. 2011 Sep;142 Suppl 3:3S-7S. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2011.0340.

  • Gazal G, Fareed WM, Zafar MS. Role of intraseptal anesthesia for pain-free dental treatment. Saudi J Anaesth. 2016 Jan-Mar;10(1):81-6. doi: 10.4103/1658-354X.169482.

  • Heller AA, Shankland WE 2nd. Alternative to the inferior alveolar nerve block anesthesia when placing mandibular dental implants posterior to the mental foramen. J Oral Implantol. 2001;27(3):127-33. doi: 10.1563/1548-1336(2001)0272.3.CO;2.

  • Leith R, Lynch K, O'Connell AC. Articaine use in children: a review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2012 Dec;13(6):293-6. doi: 10.1007/BF03320829.

  • Gazal G. Comparison of speed of action and injection discomfort of 4% articaine and 2% mepivacaine for pulpal anesthesia in mandibular teeth: A randomized, double-blind cross-over trial. Eur J Dent. 2015 Apr-Jun;9(2):201-206. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.156811.

  • Cowan A. Clinical assessment of a new local anesthetic agent-carticaine. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1977 Feb;43(2):174-80. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(77)90153-0.

  • Srisurang S, Narit L, Prisana P. Clinical efficacy of lidocaine, mepivacaine, and articaine for local infiltration. J Investig Clin Dent. 2011 Feb;2(1):23-8. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-1626.2010.00035.x. Epub 2010 Nov 8.

  • Vree TB, Gielen MJ. Clinical pharmacology and the use of articaine for local and regional anaesthesia. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2005 Jun;19(2):293-308. doi: 10.1016/j.bpa.2004.12.006.

  • Jastak JT, Yagiela JA. Vasoconstrictors and local anesthesia: a review and rationale for use. J Am Dent Assoc. 1983 Oct;107(4):623-30. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1983.0307. No abstract available.

  • Leuschner J, Leblanc D. Studies on the toxicological profile of the local anaesthetic articaine. Arzneimittelforschung. 1999 Feb;49(2):126-32. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1300372.

  • Abazarpoor R, Parirokh M, Nakhaee N, Abbott PV. A Comparison of Different Volumes of Articaine for Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block for Molar Teeth with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis. J Endod. 2015 Sep;41(9):1408-11. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.05.015. Epub 2015 Jul 3.

  • Mittal M, Sharma S, Kumar A, Chopra R, Srivastava D. Comparison of Anesthetic Efficacy of Articaine and Lidocaine During Primary Maxillary Molar Extractions in Children. Pediatr Dent. 2015 Nov-Dec;37(7):520-4.

  • Corbett IP, Kanaa MD, Whitworth JM, Meechan JG. Articaine infiltration for anesthesia of mandibular first molars. J Endod. 2008 May;34(5):514-8. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.02.042.

  • Pellicer-Chover H, Cervera-Ballester J, Sanchis-Bielsa JM, Penarrocha-Diago MA, Penarrocha-Diago M, Garcia-Mira B. Comparative split-mouth study of the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 0.5% bupivacaine in impacted mandibular third molar extraction. J Clin Exp Dent. 2013 Apr 1;5(2):e66-71. doi: 10.4317/jced.50869. eCollection 2013 Apr 1.

  • Ram D, Peretz B. Administering local anaesthesia to paediatric dental patients -- current status and prospects for the future. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2002 Mar;12(2):80-9. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-263x.2002.00343.x.

  • Becker DE, Reed KL. Local anesthetics: review of pharmacological considerations. Anesth Prog. 2012 Summer;59(2):90-101; quiz 102-3. doi: 10.2344/0003-3006-59.2.90.

  • Vigen EC, Lasse A. Articaine hydrochloride: is it the solution? Dent Update. 2015 Jun;42(5):493. doi: 10.12968/denu.2015.42.5.493. No abstract available.

  • Kammerer PW, Palarie V, Daublander M, Bicer C, Shabazfar N, Brullmann D, Al-Nawas B. Comparison of 4% articaine with epinephrine (1:100,000) and without epinephrine in inferior alveolar block for tooth extraction: double-blind randomized clinical trial of anesthetic efficacy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012 Apr;113(4):495-9. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.04.037. Epub 2011 Aug 6.

  • Pabst L, Nusstein J, Drum M, Reader A, Beck M. The efficacy of a repeated buccal infiltration of articaine in prolonging duration of pulpal anesthesia in the mandibular first molar. Anesth Prog. 2009 Winter;56(4):128-34. doi: 10.2344/0003-3006-56.4.128.

  • Dudkiewicz A, Schwartz S, Laliberte R. Effectiveness of mandibular infiltration in children using the local anesthetic Ultracaine (articaine hydrochloride). J Can Dent Assoc. 1987 Jan;53(1):29-31. No abstract available.

  • Tofoli GR, Ramacciato JC, de Oliveira PC, Volpato MC, Groppo FC, Ranali J. Comparison of effectiveness of 4% articaine associated with 1: 100,000 or 1: 200,000 epinephrine in inferior alveolar nerve block. Anesth Prog. 2003;50(4):164-8.

  • Sierra Rebolledo A, Delgado Molina E, Berini Aytis 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 Mar 1;12(2):E139-44.

  • Wright GZ, Weinberger SJ, Marti R, Plotzke O. The effectiveness of infiltration anesthesia in the mandibular primary molar region. Pediatr Dent. 1991 Sep-Oct;13(5):278-83.

  • Ramadurai N, Gurunathan D, Samuel AV, Subramanian E, Rodrigues SJL. Effectiveness of 2% Articaine as an anesthetic agent in children: randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2019 Sep;23(9):3543-3550. doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2775-5. Epub 2018 Dec 14.

Study Officials

  • Marco Menditti, Doctor

    University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli

    PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
not applicable
Allocation
NA
Masking
NONE
Purpose
SUPPORTIVE CARE
Intervention Model
SINGLE GROUP
Model Details: The subjects were children undergoing orthodontic treatment in whom early extraction was indicated to facilitate their treatment in some specific conditions (i.e. posterior crowding, altered second molar eruption, non-extraction approach). For each subject, the first germectomy was scheduled 15 days apart. The same senior operator, assisted by the same practitioner, completed all the surgical procedures. All interventions made with mepivacaine were performed with the same anaesthetic technique routinely used in Oral surgery (IANB). The technique was complemented with anaesthesia of the buccal nerve, as routine for this technique, administering another 1.8 ml of the same anaesthetic used in each intervention. On the other hand, the surgical procedures in articaine cases were made practising a plexus technique, performing a deep buccal injection distally to the second mandibular molar.
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
PI Title
Associated Professor

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

May 7, 2020

First Posted

July 9, 2020

Study Start

June 30, 2018

Primary Completion

October 31, 2019

Study Completion

April 20, 2020

Last Updated

July 9, 2020

Record last verified: 2020-07

Data Sharing

IPD Sharing
Will not share

Locations