Detailed Information

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of 2% lidocaine HCl with different epinephrine concentration for local anesthesia in participants undergoing surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, crossover, phase IV trial

Cited 10 time in Web of Science Cited 12 time in Scopus

Karm, Myong-Hwan; Park, Fiona Daye; Kang, Moonkyu; Kim, Hyun Jeong; Kang, Jeong Wan; Kim, Seungoh; Kim, Yong-Deok; Kim, Cheul-Hong; Seo, Kwang-Suk; Kwon, Kyung-Hwan; Kim, Chul-Hwan; Lee, Jung-Woo; Hong, Sung-Woon; Lim, Mi Hyoung; Nam, Seung Kwan; Cho, Jae Min

Issue Date
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Ltd.
Medicine, Vol.96 No.21, p. e6753
Background: 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 2 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 analog scale pain scores obtained immediately after surgical extraction were primarily evaluated for the 2 groups receiving different epinephrine concentrations. Visual analog scale pain scores were obtained 2, 4, and 6 hours 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 2 groups. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 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 1:2 00,000 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 using2% lidocainewith 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.
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Appears in Collections:

Related Researcher

Karm, Myong-Hwan Image

Karm, Myong-Hwan감명환
  • School of Dentistry
  • Department of Dentistry
Research Area Dental Anesthesiology, Pain Control, 치과마취, 치과진정법, 통증조절


Item View & Download Count

  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.