You know, there are just some topics in our dental profession that never really fade away. Every so often, you’ll see the discussion ignite again in our professional groups. Perhaps one of the most perplexing mysteries currently revolves around that age-old question: Can we really extract a maxillary molar or premolar without subjecting the patient to that dreaded palatal injection?
If you’ve been following along, you’ve definitely seen this debate. One dentist confidently states, “Guys, I only use buccal infiltration, and my patients are perfectly fine.” Then, another promptly retorts, “Impossible! You’re torturing your patients; palatal is a must.” And right in the middle of this contention, the name of a so-called superhero always emerges, touted as the key to this entire mystery: the anesthetic, Articaine.
So, what’s the real story here? Is this just anecdotal experience, or is there genuine science backing it up? And can we actually rely on this to spare our patients (and ourselves) the nightmare of a palatal injection? Let’s dissect this topic piece by piece, taking a quick journey through textbooks and research to truly understand the full picture.
Where Did This Story Begin? The Spark from Dr. Malamed
This narrative didn’t just appear out of thin air. The initial spark that ignited this global debate came in 2016, when one of the giants of local anesthesia, Dr. Stanley Malamed, dropped a bombshell in his highly influential textbook (1).
Malamed simply stated that by utilizing 4% Articaine anesthetic, one could achieve sufficient anesthesia of the palatal tissues through just a single buccal infiltration injection, eliminating the need for a separate palatal injection.
Naturally, when a name as prominent as Malamed puts forth such information, it causes quite a stir. His statement flung the doors wide open for research to either substantiate or refute this theory. And from there, a fierce scientific race began.
The Scientific Battlefield: What Do the Studies Say?
Just like any scientific discussion, some studies have emerged supporting the idea, while others vehemently oppose it. Let’s take a look at the main players:
The Supporting Team (with a Few Conditions)
-
Dr. Uckan’s Research: This study essentially stated, “Yes, folks, it really is possible!” But there’s a catch: you absolutely must inject 2 ml of 4% Articaine to achieve this effect (2). Now, let’s pause for a moment. A standard anesthetic cartridge holds about 1.7 or 1.8 ml. So, to follow this research protocol, you’d need to inject more than a full cartridge via buccal infiltration, which in itself is quite a substantial amount.
-
Dr. Kopal Sharma’s Research: In 2014, she conducted a comparison between Articaine and Lidocaine and frankly concluded that Articaine clearly outperformed Lidocaine in its ability to cross over and anesthetize the palate (3).
-
Dr. Sekhar’s Research: This one added a bit more complexity, suggesting that this phenomenon might even occur with 2% Lidocaine, but again, it required 2 ml, and they noted that the anesthetic took longer to work on the palate, approximately 8 minutes.
The Opposing Team (and Strongly So)
-
Dr. Ozec’s Research: This study was remarkably direct and didn’t pull any punches. Its conclusion was unequivocal: “No, it doesn’t work.” Buccal infiltration alone, even when using Articaine, was found to be entirely insufficient to adequately anesthetize the palatal area for pain-free extraction (4).
So, here we are, facing a dilemma. Some research says yes, while other research emphatically says no. But why all this contention specifically about Articaine? What makes it so different from its anesthetic counterparts?
The Superhero Articaine: What’s the Secret to Its Potency?
The entire secret, doctor, lies in its chemistry. Articaine possesses a slightly different molecular structure compared to its relatives like Lidocaine and Mepivacaine. Its molecular makeup includes a distinctive ring called the Thiophene Ring.
So what does that actually mean?
This ring grants Articaine a significantly Increased Lipid Solubility. And because cell membranes and cancellous bone inherently contain a good percentage of lipids, this provides Articaine with an incredible ability to diffuse and penetrate through tissues and bone with remarkable ease and speed.
The whole theory is based on the premise that when you inject Articaine buccally, its superior penetration capability allows it to “dive” deep into the bone, traverse to the other side, reach the palatal nerves, and anesthetize them. But is life truly that simple? Definitely not.
Before You Decide: 5 Crucial Points to Consider
Even if you’re enthusiastic about this concept, there are a few potential pitfalls that could lead to your patient screaming in pain and you regretting the day you even thought of trying this.
-
Individual Patient Variation: A patient’s Pain Threshold can vary dramatically. What might register as mere pressure for one person could be a scream-inducing agony for another.
-
Diagnosis is King: If you’re extracting a perfectly healthy tooth for orthodontic purposes, you might get away with it. However, if the case involves Acute Pulpitis, forget about it entirely. Inflamed tissues are acidic, which significantly impairs the efficacy of any anesthetic. Almost all research concurs that the failure rate is extremely high in such cases.
-
Concentration Matters: Don’t forget that the 4% Articaine we’re discussing here is double the concentration of standard 2% Lidocaine. This increased potency is an integral part of its diffusive capability.
-
Bone Anatomy: The thickness of the maxillary bone is not uniform. Certain areas, like the region of the first permanent molar, which is directly superior to the Zygomatic buttress, have much denser and thicker bone. In these specific areas, the likelihood of the anesthetic successfully diffusing through is considerably lower.
-
The Subjectivity of Pain: Measuring pain in research studies is highly subjective. This is precisely why it’s easy to find one study saying yes and another saying no, as the experience itself heavily relies on the patient’s personal sensation.
The Bottom Line: What Should I Do Tomorrow in the Clinic? The Final Verdict… For Now
After all this extensive discussion, we arrive at the practical question: In short, should I administer that palatal injection or not?
The honest answer is: there’s currently no definitive, conclusive word on the matter.
However, we can draw some very practical Clinical Take-home Messages:
-
Palatal Infiltration remains the Gold Standard – the most reliable and safest method to ensure 100% that your patient will feel absolutely nothing. This is especially true if you plan to raise a palatal flap.
-
If you’re eager to try the “buccal only” approach: You can, but proceed with extreme caution.
-
Choose the right case: A simple extraction, a non-inflamed tooth, and a patient who appears calm and tolerant.
-
Specifically use 4% Articaine.
-
Be upfront with the patient beforehand: Tell them, “We’ll try without the ‘uncomfortable’ injection, but if you feel even the slightest sensation, please tell me immediately, and we’ll give you additional anesthesia.” Make them a partner in the decision.
-
Gauge their sensation first: Before introducing instruments, gently touch the palatal gingiva with a probe and observe their reaction. If they flinch, you’ll know exactly what you need to do.
-
-
The Smarter Solution: Administer the Injection Painlessly! Instead of eliminating it entirely, learn how to give the injection with minimal discomfort:
-
Effective Topical Anesthesia: Apply a generous amount of topical anesthetic on a cotton pellet and leave it on the site for one or two minutes.
-
Pressure Anesthesia Technique: Take a dry cotton swab and apply firm pressure to the exact injection site for 10-15 seconds before inserting the needle. This pressure creates a brief, temporary anesthesia and effectively distracts the patient.
-
Inject at a Snail’s Pace: Drop… by drop… by drop. The slower you inject, the significantly less pain the patient will experience.
-
Ultimately, doctor, your decision must be based on a careful balance between patient comfort and ensuring they experience no pain. A few seconds of discomfort from a correctly administered injection is far, far better than sudden, intense pain in the middle of an extraction, which could make you lose your patient’s trust forever.
