A clinical comparison of bupivacaine versus lidocaine for maxillary and mandibular anesthesia in oral surgery

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of bupivacaine and lignocaine for the surgical removal of mandibular impacted third molars. The study focused on pain experience and analgesic consumption. Materials and Methods: Forty patients, aged between 18-45yrs, were selected each with bilateral mandibular third molar indicated for extraction under local anesthesia. The mean age of the patients was 24 years and the ratio of males to females was 23 to 17. All patients randomly received lignocaine 2% with adrenaline 1:200,000 for one extraction and bupivacaine 0.5% with adrenaline 1:200,000 for the other sided extraction. Results: The visual analog and global pain scores for both groups were outlined. There was no significant difference between bupivacaine and lidocaine for intra-operative pain experience. Conclusion: There were no signs or symptoms of central nervous system or cardiovascular system toxicity in this study and the routine use of bupivacaine in oral surgery would appear to be a safe and effective method of producing adequate surgical analgesia and an increased post-operative pain free period.

Keywords

• Bupivacaine
• Impacted third molars
• Lignocaine
• Visual analog scale
• Global pain scale.