+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Randomized Controlled Trail Comparing the Efficacy of 0.5% Centbucridine to 2% Lignocaine as Local Anesthetics in Dental Extractions


      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          The development of local anesthesia in dentistry has marked the beginning of a new era in terms of pain control. Lignocaine is the most commonly used local anesthetic (LA) agent even though it has a vasodilative effect and needs to be combined with adrenaline. Centbucridine is a non-ester, non amide group LA and has not been comprehensively studied in the dental setting and the objective was to compare it to Lignocaine. This was a randomized study comparing the onset time, duration, depth and cardiovascular parameters between Centbucridine (0.5%) and Lignocaine (2%). The study was conducted in the dental outpatient department at the Government Dental College in India on patients attending for the extraction of lower molars. A total of 198 patients were included and there were no significant differences between the LAs except those who received Centbucridine reported a significantly longer duration of anesthesia compared to those who received Lignocaine. None of the patients reported any side effects. Centbucridine was well tolerated and its substantial duration of anesthesia could be attributed to its chemical compound. Centbucridine can be used for dental procedures and can confidently be used in patients who cannot tolerate Lignocaine or where adrenaline is contraindicated.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Handbook of local anaesthesia

            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Adverse reaction to dental local anaesthetic injection--'allergy' is not the cause.

             J Rood (2000)
            To investigate patients considered to have experienced allergic reactions to local anaesthetics administered for dental treatment. Dental facility within a general hospital. Skin and intra-oral challenge tests. No patients were found to be allergic to lignocaine or prilocaine. The most likely causes of the adverse reactions were found to be psychogenic. Although allergy to lignocaine (and the other amide anaesthetic agents used in dentistry) is known to be extremely rare, it continues to be suggested as a cause when adverse reactions to dental injections occur. Psychogenic reactions are the main causes of untoward events, and some can be alarming. A smaller proportion of adverse responses can be attributed to (avoidable) intravascular injections. Adverse reactions can be reduced if injections are administered carefully.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Allergy to local anaesthetic: the importance of thorough investigation.

              A case report is presented which highlights the importance of a good history in arriving at the correct diagnosis in cases where allergy to local anaesthetic is suspected. Management of the patient is discussed and the topic of 'adverse reaction' briefly reviewed.

                Author and article information

                Int J Dent
                International Journal of Dentistry
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                22 November 2011
                : 2011
                1Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Taibah University, Hizaam Street, P.O. Box 1263, Madinah Munawarah, Saudi Arabia
                2Dental Public Health, College of Dentistry, Taibah University, Hizaam Street, P.O. Box 1263, Madinah Munawarah, Saudi Arabia
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: John D. Bartlett

                Copyright © 2011 Samir Mansuri et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                Clinical Study



                Comment on this article