PATIENT RELATED OUTCOMES OF 2% LIDOCAINEHYDROCHLORIDE INFILTRATION FOR SUBGINGIVAL SCALING AND ROOT PLANING: A RANDOMIZED DOUBLE-BLIND SPLIT-MOUTH STUDY

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES The selection of a particular anaesthetic agent depends on the arch, number of teeth requiring anesthesia, the area of soft tissue anesthesia required for the subgingival scaling. The objectives of this study were to evaluate and comparative anaesthetic efficacy of the infiltration anesthesia of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (4%Ar + Ep) and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (2%Li + Ep) for subgingival scaling and root planing (SRP) in mandibular arch.in terms clinical anaesthetic parameters in relation to patient compliance including anxiety level, duration of anesthesia, pain perception and patient satisfaction with the procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS This was randomized double bind split-mouth study. Study included 50 adult patient with generalized periodontitis received 4%Ar + Ep with 2%Li + Ep for subgingival SRP. Comparison of these anaesthetic solution was evaluated with the success rate, onset and duration of anesthesia. Anxiety level and VAS score were also recorded. RESULTS Both anaesthetic solutions were effective during subgingival scaling and root planing. The results of the study had shown no significant difference between both groups in terms of anxiety level. Subjects receiving 4% Articaine local anaesthetic solution has experienced less pain during the subgingival scaling and root planing.4% articaine has shown longer duration of anesthesia of up to 2.61 hours. Results indicates that all patients were satisfied with both anaesthetic solutions for subgingival scaling and root planing. CONCLUSION Articaine was a suitable alternative for lidocaine for mandibular local infiltration in subgingival scaling and root planing. It was superior to lidocaine. CLINICAL RELEVANCE 4%Ar + Ep provides an effective anesthesia for routine subgingival SRP with better patient compliance.