Hemostatic and Anesthetic Efficacy of 4% Articaine HCl With 1:200,000 Epinephrine and 4% Articaine HCl With 1:100,000 Epinephrine When Administered Intraorally for Periodontal Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this double-masked, randomized, multicenter crossover study was to compare the efficacy of 4% articaine HCl with 1:100,000 epinephrine (A100) to 4% articaine HCl with 1:200,000 epinephrine (A200) for providing effective local anesthesia and hemostasis for periodontal surgery. METHODS: Anesthetic efficacy was based on patient self-report and lack of need for reinjection during the surgical procedures. Hemostatic properties of the formulations were compared using ratings of the surgeons' ability to visualize the surgical field and expectation for bleeding. The volume of blood collected during each surgical session also was measured and compared. RESULTS: Forty-two adult subjects (26 males and 16 females, mean age 46.3 +/- 9.7 years) diagnosed with moderate to severe periodontal disease requiring local anesthesia for matched bilateral periodontal surgery were enrolled and completed the study. Subjects reported satisfactory surgical anesthesia following the A100 and A200 formulations; no supplemental local anesthesia was administered. Significant differences between the A100 and A200 treatments were found for the surgeons' ability to visualize the surgical field (rated as clear 83.3% of the time with A100 and 59.5% of the time with A200; P = 0.008), bleeding expectation (rated as equal to or better than expected 85.7% of the time with A100 and 71.4% of the time with A200; P = 0.034), and volume of blood loss (54.9 +/- 36.0 ml for A100 and 70.2 +/- 53.0 ml for A200; P = 0.018). Sixteen patients experienced 27 mild or moderate adverse events; the most common were postoperative pain (nine patients) and swelling (eight patients). Six adverse events may have been related to treatment. The frequency of adverse events did not vary between formulations. CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing periodontal surgery, 4% articaine anesthetic formulations containing epinephrine (1:100,000 or 1:200,000) provided excellent surgical pain control. For patients who can tolerate higher amounts of epinephrine, the 4% articaine 1:100,000 epinephrine formulation had the additional therapeutic advantage of providing better visualization of the surgical field and less bleeding.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".