MedDataX Logo

Articaine Efficacy and Safety for 3 Years Old Children

NCT ID: NCT05839548

Last Updated: 2024-12-27

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING

Clinical Phase

PHASE3

Total Enrollment

200 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2023-07-01

Study Completion Date

2025-05-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The primary purpose of this study is to determine the local anesthetic efficacy and safety of 4% Articaine compared 2% Mepivicaine in 3 years old children, by using infiltration technique for primary teeth that required restorative, pulp therapy, or dental extraction procedure, as assessed by measuring the pain experience during injection and treatment procedures, child's behavior during the procedure, and postoperative complications.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Articaine has been widely used in dental surgery. Dentists started to use carticaine around 1977. In dentistry, articaine has been investigated extensively. Clinical trials comparing articaine mostly with lidocaine have varied in study design and site of action. The overwhelming majority of references in the literature describing the alleged neurotoxicity of articain concern paraesthesia and prolonged numbness after dental procedures. An excellent review of the dental literature was published last year. The authors concluded that articaine is a safe and effective local anesthetic drug to use in all aspects of clinical dentistry for patients of all ages, with properties comparable to other common local anesthetic agents. Although there may be controversy regarding its safety and advantages in comparison to other local anesthetics, there is no conclusive evidence demonstrating neurotoxicity or significantly superior anesthetic properties of articaine for dental procedures. The choice whether to use articaine or another local anesthetic is based on the personal preference and experiences of individual clinicians. 3Currently, articaine is available as a 4% solution containing 1:100,000 or 1:200,000 epinephrine. Clinical trials comparing 4% with 2% solutions show no clinical advantage of 4% over a 2% solution.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Dental Caries in Children Dental Diseases Pulp Disease, Dental Behavior, Child

Keywords

Explore important study keywords that can help with search, categorization, and topic discovery.

Articaine. Local anaesthesia. Child. Pain.

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

This is a prospective, randomized, clinical trial with two parallel arms, to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 4% Articaine, 2% Mepivacaine on vital and non-vital primary teeth that needs restorative, pulp therapy, or dental extraction by using buccal infiltration technique. The effect will be assessed by measuring the pain experience during injection and treatment procedures, and by assessing the child's behavior during the procedure, and postoperative pain and complications. The study consisted of a screening period for up to 6 months. A Qualified participants through the screening assessments will be assigned randomly to receive either 4% Articaine, or 2% Mepivacaine.
Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

2% Mepivacaine with epinephrine 1:100,000.

Brand Name: 2% Medicaine with epinephrine 1:100,000.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Mepivacaine 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000

Intervention Type DRUG

Local Anesthesia

4% Articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000

Brand Name: 4% Septanest with epinephrine 1:100,000.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Articaine (4%) with epinephrine 1:100,000

Intervention Type DRUG

Local Anesthesia

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Mepivacaine 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000

Local Anesthesia

Intervention Type DRUG

Articaine (4%) with epinephrine 1:100,000

Local Anesthesia

Intervention Type DRUG

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

medicaine 2% septanest 4%

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

1\. They are Healthy (ASA 1: no acute or chronic disease, normal BMI percentile for age.

1. They are 36 to 47 months old children.
2. Intellectually qualified for communication.
3. They have under gone either clinically indicated gingival abscess, dental caries or pathological root resorption or periapical radiolucency showing on the radiograph.
4. Child's body weight at least 15 kg.
5. Ability to communicate effectively in the Arabic or English language.
6. Not taking any agents likely to interfere with reporting of pain (analgesics).
7. Needs any of the following procedure: Class I cavity, Class II cavity, pulpotomy, pulpectomy, stainless steel crown (SSC) or extraction.
8. Prior to enrollment, all radiographic data must be found acceptable by pediatric dentist.
9. Written and singed informed consent from legally acceptable representative.

Exclusion Criteria

Patients are excluded from the study if:

1. Patients have allergic to local anesthetic with epinephrine (sulphites or amide).
2. Intellectual or severe emotional problems. patient with intellectual development is significantly lower than average and his or her ability to adapt to the environment is consequently limited like autism, Down syndrome, fragile x syndrome, fetal alcohol syndrome, and Prader-Willi syndrome.
3. Considerable behavior problems.
4. Parents refuse participation in the trial.
5. History of previous bad dental experience.
6. Primary tooth who had a history of failed pulp therapy.
7. They have uncontrolled medical condition.
8. They use immunosuppressive agents, rifampin, or anticonvulsants, or any other medication.
9. Glucose 6 phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency.
10. Congenital cardiac diseases.
11. Seizures or uncontrolled epilepsy.
Minimum Eligible Age

36 Months

Maximum Eligible Age

47 Months

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Qassim Health Cluster

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Murad A. Alrashdi, ABPD

Role: STUDY_CHAIR

Qassim University

Asya A. Almansour, SBPD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Ministry of Health, Qassim cluster.

Atyaf A. Alhunti

Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR

Qassim University

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Qassim University

Burayadh, Al-Qassim Region, Saudi Arabia

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Saudi Arabia

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Elheeny AAH. Articaine efficacy and safety in young children below the age of four years: An equivalent parallel randomized control trial. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2020 Sep;30(5):547-555. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12640. Epub 2020 Apr 13.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 32223002 (View on PubMed)

Brignardello-Petersen R. Articaine and lidocaine probably have similar effects in 3- to 4-year-old children undergoing pulpotomy of a primary molar. J Am Dent Assoc. 2020 Oct;151(10):e93. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2020.06.029. Epub 2020 Aug 11. No abstract available.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 32797942 (View on PubMed)

Massignan C, Silveira Santos P, Cardoso M, Bolan M. Efficacy and adverse events of 4% articaine compared with 2% lidocaine on primary molar extraction: A randomised controlled trial. J Oral Rehabil. 2020 Aug;47(8):1031-1040. doi: 10.1111/joor.12989. Epub 2020 May 25.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 32383196 (View on PubMed)

Rayati F, Haeri M, Norouziha A, Jabbarian R. Comparison of the efficacy of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 and 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 buccal infiltration for single maxillary molar extraction: a double-blind, randomised, clinical trial. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021 Jul;59(6):695-699. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.09.009. Epub 2020 Sep 11.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 34053801 (View on PubMed)

Alrashdi M, Alhunti A, Almansour A. Efficacy and safety of articaine in 3-year-old children for dental procedures: a protocol for a clinical randomised control trial in Saudi Arabia. BMJ Open. 2023 Oct 21;13(10):e077751. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077751.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 37865418 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

607\43\7809

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id