DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20173753

A comparative study between 0.5% centbucridine and 2% lignocaine with adrenaline (1:200,000) for bilateral extraction of mandibular premolar using nerve block anesthesia: a double blind randomized controlled clinical study

Lucky Shrihari, V. Suresh, V. Yuvaraj, R. Sathyanarayanan, M. Shyamala, S. Monica

Abstract


Background: The purpose of the study was to compare the efficacy of 0.5% centbucridine and 2% lignocaine with adrenaline (1:200,000).

Methods: A clinical prospective, controlled, randomized, double blind group study was conducted on 22 patients referred for extraction of mandibular premolars, who were randomly assigned to 2 groups by the split mouth method. Before extraction of mandibular premolar, either 0.5% centbucridine or 2% lignocaine with 1:200,000 adrenaline were used for anesthesia. All the patients were given inferior alveolar, lingual, and long buccal nerve blocks. Pain on injection, onset of anesthesia, duration of anesthesia and changes in blood pressure and pulse rate were monitored and recorded.

Results: In our study, statistically significant difference was found between the efficacy of agents as for time for onset of anesthesia, duration of action, and changes in blood pressure and pulse rate, but no statistically significant difference was found for pain on injection between two groups.

Conclusions: The efficacy of centbucridine was found to be more as compared to lignocaine with adrenaline, in rapid onset of anesthesia, longer duration of action, and cardiovascular stability. There was no significant difference in the pain on injection for both centbucridine and lignocaine with adrenaline. Centbucridine can be used in medically compromised condition where adrenaline is contraindicated.


Keywords


Centbucridine, Lignocaine, Local anaesthetic

Full Text:

PDF

References


Mansuri S, Bhayat A, Omar E, Jarab F, Ahmed M. A randomized controlled trail comparing the efficacy of 0.5% centbucridine to 2% lignocaine as local anesthetics in dental extractions. International Journal of Dentistry. 2011:1-4.

Patnaik G, Rastogi S, Anand N, Dhawan B. Evaluation of local anesthetic activity of 4-N-butylamino-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroacrdine hydrochloride (centbucridine)-A 4-substituded polymethylenequinoline. Indian J Exp Biol. 1982;20:327-9.

Patnaik G, Dhawan B. Pharmacological Study of 4-N-butylamino-1,2,3,4- tetrahydroacridine hydrochloride (centbucridine): A new local anesthetic agent. Indian J Exp Biol. 1982;20:330-333.

Samsi A, Bhalerao R, Shah S, Mody B, Paul T, Satoskar R. Evaluation of centbucridine as a local anesthetic. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 1983;62(1):109-11.

Biswas NR, Verma B, Ghose S, Das GK, Beri S, Pandey RM. Centbucridine, a newer topical anaesthetic compared with lignocaine: a randomized double masked single drop instillation clinical trial. Indian journal of physiology and pharmacology. 2003 Jan;47(1):67-74.

Gupta P, Nithyanand S, Shipstone A. Experimental evaluation of potential neurotoxicity of 4-N-butylamino-1,2,3,4-terahydoacridine hydrochloride (centbucridine) A new local anesthetic agent. Indian J 27 Exp Biol. 1982;20:339-43.

Nithyanand S, Sethi N, Srivastava G. Chronic toxicity studies on 4-N- butlyanino-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroacridine hydrochloride (centbucridine; a new local anesthetic agent). Indian J Exp Biol. 1982;20:334-6.

Dasgupta D, Tendulkar B, Paul T, Satoskar R. Comparative Study on Centbucridine and Lignocaine for 34 Subarachnoid Block. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine. 1984;30(4):207-9.

Giri A, Khan A, Srivastava S. Evaluation of the Genotoxicity of 4-N-Butylamino- 1,2,3,4 Terahydroacridine Hydrochloride (Centbucridine): A New Local Anesthetic. J Cytobios. 1992;72(290):159-66.

Sethi N, Mukherjee S. Teratogenic Studies on 4-N-Butylanino-1,2,3,4, tertahydroacridine Hydrochloride (Centbucridine): A New Local Anaesthetic Agent. Indian J Experimental Biology. 1982;20:337-8.

Pérusse R, Goulet J, Turcotte J. Contraindications to vasoconstrictors in dentistry: Part I. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology. 1992;74(5):679-86.

Pérusse R, Goulet J, Turcotte J. Contraindications to vasoconstrictors in dentistry: Part II. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology. 1992;74(5):687-91.

Siddiqi A, Morkel J, Zafar S. Antibiotic prophylaxis in third molar surgery: A randomized double-blind 54 placebo-controlled clinical trial using split-mouth technique. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2010;39(2):107-14.

Hujoel P, De Rouen T. Validity issues in split-mouth trials. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 1992;19(9):625-7.

Hujoel P, Loesche W. Efficiency of split-mouth designs. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 1990;17(10):722-8.

Moher D, Schulz K, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. The Lancet. 2001;357(9263):1191-4.

Ong K, Tan J. Preoperative intravenous tramadol versus ketorolac for preventing postoperative pain after third molar surgery. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2004;33(3):274-8.

Johnson A, Webber J, Mansell P, Gallen I, Allison S, Macdonald I. Cardiovascular and metabolic responses to adrenaline infusion in patients with short-term hypothyroidism. Clin Endocrinol. 1995;43(6):747-51.

Tolas A, Pflug A, Halter J. Arterial plasma epinephrine concentrations and hemodynamic responses after dental injection of local anesthetic with epinephrine. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 1982;104(1):41-3.

Dugal A, Khanna R, Patankar A. A comparative study between 0.5% centbucridine HCl and 2% lignocaine HCl with adrenaline (1:2,00,000). Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery. 2009;8(3):221-3.