Aim: The purpose of this study was to conduct a comparative analysis of the potential toxicity of 2% and 4%
articaine on the cardiovascualar system of patients during tooth extraction, as well as to assess the risk of
complications associated with the use of anesthetics. As part of the study, the tasks were set to assess the toxicity
of articaine on cell cultures and analyze hemodynamic changes in patients during the tooth extraction procedure.
Materials and Methods: The determination of the half-life concentration (LC50) in an in vitro study was used to
assess cytotoxicity.Monitoring of the cardiovascular and respiratory systems was carried out using Mindray ePM
10.
Results: A cell culture study confirmed that the 2% drug has significantly lower cytotoxicity than the 4% drug.
The monitoring results showed that systolic blood pressure was normal before surgery, with no statistically
significant differences between the groups (p>0.05). 2 minutes after the injection of the anesthetic, the pressure
remained normal, but after 4 minutes it increased, while in the 2% articaine group it was 3 mmHg lower than in the
4% group (p<0.05). By 8 minutes, the pressure returned to normal values. Dynamics analysis showed a significant
increase in systolic blood pressure in both groups by 2 and 4 minutes, followed by a decrease by 8 minutes
(p<0.001). Diastolic pressure and pulse also did not show significant differences between the groups, but their
dynamics increased in both groups by 4 minutes, followed by a decrease by 8 minutes (p<0.001). Saturation
remained normal, but it decreased by 4 minutes with recovery by 8 minutes (p<0.001).
Conclusion: The revealed results confirm that 2% articaine is a safe alternative to 4% articaine, especially for
patients with concomitant pathologies. The study highlights the need for careful choice of anesthetics in clinical
practice to minimize the risk of complications.
Hi! I can explain how to publish or share, find articles in your field, format citations and answer questions about fees and licensing. How can I help?
Answers are based on The Gufo’s published policies. Editorial decisions are made by the editorial team.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
