Clinical trials

Context: Lidocaine and articaine are two of the most commonly used local anesthetics in dentistry. Lidocaine has often been the anesthetic of choice in clinical practice, but in clinical experience, articaine has proven to be more effective in controlling pain during dental procedures. (Camps-Font, O. et al. 2020). There are still unanswered questions, such as which of the two local anesthetics is more effective in reducing pain? This could lead us to discuss which one to choose to reduce costs in the dental office. Objective: The objective of this project is to determine and compare the effectiveness of lidocaine and articaine in clinical contexts such as tooth extraction with infiltrative techniques, seeking to provide answers that will optimize the choice of anesthetic based on the patient and the procedure, thus improving pain management and reducing costs in the dental office. Design: Randomized double-blind experimental study, parallel groups. The control group received 2% lidocaine, and the experimental group received 4% articaine. The study will be conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT 2010). The probabilistic sampling technique is through simple randomization. The 100 patients who meet the inclusion criteria will be randomly assigned to the control and experimental groups in a 1:1 ratio. Expected results: articaine shows a lower percentage of extractions with anesthetic reinforcement and, therefore, a lower average number of additional tubes.

Third molar extraction is a common dental procedure, offently related with pain and swelling. The purpose of this study is to evaluate if Meloxicam has a better effect relieving pain after the extraction than Ibuprofen, one of the most common pain relieving drugs administered after this procedure.