Comparative Efficacy of 2% Lignocaine Jelly and Benzocaine Gel for Reduction of Procedural Tooth Pain During Dental Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61919/jhrr.v5i8.1953Keywords:
topical anesthesia; lignocaine; benzocaine; dental pain; randomized controlled trial; visual analog scale.Abstract
Background: Procedural tooth pain remains common during dental treatment for pulpal inflammatory conditions, and topical anesthetic gels are frequently used to improve patient comfort. Objective: To compare the efficacy of 2% lignocaine jelly versus benzocaine gel versus placebo in reducing procedural tooth pain during dental treatment. Methods: A parallel-group randomized controlled trial was conducted at Sharif Medical and Dental Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan, enrolling 90 adults allocated equally to lignocaine jelly, benzocaine gel, or placebo. Pain intensity was assessed using a 0–10 visual analog scale (VAS) at baseline and during the procedure. Primary outcome was procedural VAS; secondary outcomes included pain reduction (baseline–procedure), success rate (VAS ≤3), and predictors of success by logistic regression. Results: Baseline pain was similar across groups (ANOVA p=0.72). Procedural pain was lower with lignocaine (4.6±1.5) and benzocaine (4.9±1.6) than placebo (6.9±1.7), with mean differences of −2.3 and −2.0 VAS units versus placebo (both p<0.001). Adequate pain relief (VAS ≤3) occurred in 40.0% (lignocaine), 33.3% (benzocaine), and 10.0% (placebo) (χ² p=0.004). Adjusted odds of success were higher for lignocaine (OR 5.4) and benzocaine (OR 4.0). Conclusion: Both 2% lignocaine jelly and benzocaine gel significantly reduce procedural tooth pain compared with placebo, supporting their use as effective topical analgesic adjuncts.
Downloads
References
Arora G, Degala S, Dasukil S. Efficacy of buffered local anaesthetics in head and neck infections. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;57(9):857-860.
Chandrasekaran D, Chinnaswami R, Shanthi K, Dhiravia Sargunam AE, Kumar KS, Satheesh T. A prospective study to assess the efficacy of 4% articaine, 0.5% bupivacaine and 2% lignocaine using a single buccal supraperiosteal injection for maxillary tooth extraction. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2021;13(Suppl 1):S721-S724.
Chen S, Xiang J, Ji Y. Efficacy of articaine vs lignocaine for infiltration anaesthesia during primary molar extractions. Pak J Med Sci. 2022.
Crabtree S. Use of intravenous lignocaine in the perioperative and chronic pain setting. Br J Hosp Med. 2022.
Fathima HM. Comparative evaluation of two topical anaesthetic gels to reduce pain during local anaesthesia administration. 2020.
Fathima Jamal RD, T AD, Yolanda Jeevitha JD, M SD, P RD. Effectiveness of local anaesthesia spray vs supra periosteal infiltration in mobile anterior/posterior teeth—A comparative study. Int J Sci Res. 2023:39-41.
Gandhi N, Shah N, Wahjuningrum DA, Purnomo S, Nooshian R, Arora S, et al. Evaluation of pulpal anesthesia and injection pain using IANB with pre-heated, buffered and conventional 2% lignocaine in teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis—a randomized clinical study. PeerJ. 2022;10:e14187.
Hashmi MJ, Rahman A-u, Khan MA, Khan MA, Abdullah S, Shahzad HM. Anesthetic efficacy of single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine and 2% lignocaine in extraction of maxillary 1st molar. Pak J Med Health Sci. 2022.
Javed M, Alam MA, Arooj Z, Asghar H, Haroon K, Qadeer M. Comparing the efficacy of articaine and lignocaine in maxillary irreversible pulpitis: A randomized triple blind study. Proceedings. 2024.
Kolte DR, Kalsi H, Kharkar V, Patil T, Kumar B, Wagh A, et al. Efficacy of articaine versus lignocaine as local anesthetic agents using buccal infiltration technique for extraction of mandibular premolars. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2024.
Kotian N, Mani G, Ramakrishnan M. Comparative evaluation of two different topical anesthetic agents in controlling pain during intraoral local anesthetic administration in children: A split-mouth triple-blinded randomized clinical trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2021.
Kumar K, Singh R, Kumar S, Gupta J, Kumar A, Verma A. Efficacy of 2% lignocaine and 4% articaine in oral surgical procedure: A comparative study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2020.
M.M A, Khatri A, Kalra N, Tyagi R, Khandelwal D. Pain perception and efficacy of local analgesia using 2% lignocaine, buffered lignocaine, and 4% articaine in pediatric dental procedures. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2019;19(2):101.
Miroshnychenko A, Ibrahim S, Azab M, Roldan Y, Martinez JPD, Tamilselvan D, et al. Injectable and topical local anesthetics for acute dental pain. J Am Dent Assoc. 2023.
Pentapati K, Singh A, Gadicherla S, Smriti K. Efficacy of lignocaine with buprenorphine versus lignocaine in the management of postoperative pain after minor oral surgical procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2020;10(6):686.
Ramadurai N, Gurunathan D, Samuel A, Subramanian E, Rodrigues S. Effectiveness of 2% articaine as an anesthetic agent in children: randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2018.
Suzuki T, Kosugi K, Suto T, Tobe M, Tabata Y, Yokoo S, et al. Sustained-release lidocaine sheet for pain following tooth extraction: A randomized, single-blind, dose-response, controlled, clinical study of efficacy and safety. PLoS One. 2018;13(7):e0200059.
Tiwary S, Joshi S, Sanyal P, Kurade S. Local anaesthetic effect of lidocaine and articaine: A comparative clinical study. Uttar Pradesh J Zool. 2021.
Tole N, Neeli A. Evaluation of the efficacy of buffered local anesthetic in extraction of infected teeth—randomized double-blind study. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024.
Venkat Narayanan J, Gurram P, Krishnan R, Muthusubramanian V, Sadesh Kannan V. Infiltrative local anesthesia with articaine is equally as effective as inferior alveolar nerve block with lidocaine for the removal of erupted molars. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;21(3):295-299.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Muhammad Ali, Asma Suhail
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Public Licensing Terms
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Under this license:
- You are free to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) for any purpose, including commercial use.
- Attribution must be given to the original author(s) and source in a manner that is reasonable and does not imply endorsement. If changes were made to the material, this must be indicated.
- No additional restrictions may be applied that conflict with the terms of this license.
For more details, visit: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
