Open Access
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2021; 15(04): 660-668
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1727553
Original Article

Comparative Analysis of Different Local Anesthetic Solutions Available in Market: An In Vitro and Clinical Study

Autoren

  • Eisha Imran

    1   Department of Dental Materials, Islamic International Dental College, Riphah University, Islamabad, Pakistan
  • Faisal Moeen

    1   Department of Dental Materials, Islamic International Dental College, Riphah University, Islamabad, Pakistan
  • Beenish Abbas

    2   Department of Pediatric Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Foundation University, Islamabad, Pakistan
  • Bakhtawar Yaqoob

    1   Department of Dental Materials, Islamic International Dental College, Riphah University, Islamabad, Pakistan
  • Mehreen Wajahat

    3   Department of Science of Dental Materials, Avicenna Dental College, Lahore, Pakistan
  • Quratulain Khan

    4   Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Shifa College of Dentistry, Shifa Tameer e Millat University, Islamabad, Pakistan
  • Zohaib Khurshid

    5   Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, College of Dentistry, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia

Funding None.

Abstract

Objectives This study aimed to evaluate and compare various commercially available local anesthetic solutions.

Materials and Methods A total of 150 commercially available local anesthetic cartridges of similar composition (2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000) were randomly collected and divided into 3 groups. The designations of groups were selected from their product names such that each group consisted of 60 cartridges. Group S (Septodont, France) Group M (Medicaine, Korea) and Group H (HD-Caine, Pakistan). The samples were divided into five sub-groups, each consisting of 10 cartridges from each group to investigate each parameter.

Results The acquired data was statistically analyzed and compared (using SPSS version 12). Compositional analysis revealed a non-significant (P>0.05) difference when the three Groups were compared with standard lidocaine and epinephrine solutions. The mean pH values of samples from group S, M, and H respectively fell within the range of pH values of commercially available solutions. Non-significant difference in EPT values of Group S and H was found when efficacy was compared (p = 0.3), however a significant difference (p < 0.01) was observed in contrast to Group M. Anti-bacterial activity was observed in all the group and a non-significant difference in cell viability values of Group S and M was found (p = 0.6), while the difference was significant in comparison to Group H.

Conclusion Within the limitations of these investigations, it appears that the properties of different manufacturers fall within the recommended ranges as mentioned in literature and do not appear to be statistically different in the variables we have tested.



Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
26. Mai 2021

© 2021. European Journal of Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India