• Users Online: 190
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 

 Table of Contents  
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 563-567

Comparison of efficacy of local anesthetic drugs lignocaine, ropivacaine, and bupivacaine in pain control during extraction of mandibular posterior teeth

Private Practitioner, New Delhi, India

Date of Submission28-Mar-2020
Date of Decision04-Jul-2022
Date of Acceptance24-Aug-2022
Date of Web Publication2-Nov-2022

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Preeti Gupta
Private Practitioner, New Delhi
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jdmimsu.jdmimsu_78_20

Rights and Permissions

Background: Posterior tooth extractions provide a challenge due to variations in anesthetic capacity and effects, especially postoperatively. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of three anesthetic agents – lignocaine, bupivacaine, and ropivacaine – during extraction procedure of mandibular posterior teeth. Materials and Methods: Two hundred and fifty study participants were randomly divided into three groups: Group I – individuals under 2% lignocaine (n = 84), Group 2 – individuals under bupivacaine (n = 86), and Group 3 – individuals under ropivacaine (n = 80). Hemodynamic and anesthetic and analgesic parameters were recorded and statistically analyzed using analysis of variance. Results: Significant differences were observed between three anesthetic agents used pertaining to anesthetic and analgesic changes, whereas no significant effects were observed when comparing the hemodynamic parameters. Conclusion: Ropivacaine provided the best clinical outcome in terms of both anesthetic efficacy and postoperative analgesia following the extraction of mandibular posterior teeth.

Keywords: Analgesia, anesthesia, bupivacaine, intraoperative, lignocaine, postoperative, ropivacaine

How to cite this article:
Gupta P. Comparison of efficacy of local anesthetic drugs lignocaine, ropivacaine, and bupivacaine in pain control during extraction of mandibular posterior teeth. J Datta Meghe Inst Med Sci Univ 2022;17:563-7

How to cite this URL:
Gupta P. Comparison of efficacy of local anesthetic drugs lignocaine, ropivacaine, and bupivacaine in pain control during extraction of mandibular posterior teeth. J Datta Meghe Inst Med Sci Univ [serial online] 2022 [cited 2023 Feb 1];17:563-7. Available from: http://www.journaldmims.com/text.asp?2022/17/3/563/360235

  Introduction Top

Local anesthetic agents are used for obtaining anesthetic and analgesic activity during surgery and management of pain. These agents are classified into two categories: (a) amides and (b) esters. The amide group contains lignocaine, mepivacaine, bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, prilocaine, and ropivacaine, whereas the ester group contains procaine, chloroprocaine, amethocaine, and cocaine. Injectable local anesthetic agents get absorbed and undergo distribution to distant organs. Most of the absorbed local anesthetic drugs undergo hepatic clearance. These agents are tightly bound to plasma proteins, thus limiting the bioavailability. Lignocaine is moderately bound to proteins and has a high percentage of hepatic extraction (70%–75% per passage), whereas bupivacaine and ropivacaine are extremely bound to proteins and get <50% clearance per passage. Ropivacaine is a long-acting amide local anesthetic agent with an efficacy similar to that of bupivacaine. It has low central nervous and cardiac toxicity potential and low propensity for motor nerve block. This drug has low cardiotoxicity as compared to bupivacaine but equivalent to lignocaine.[1]

Lignocaine was first synthesized by Nils Lofgren (1948), whereas bupivacaine was first of all synthesized by A. F. Ekenstam (1957). Its action lasts for two-to-three times more than that of lignocaine with much prolonged analgesic effect even after return of sensation. Both these agents are used for attaining infiltration and surface anesthesia and field or conduction block. This study showed a reduction in heart rate between 15 and 30 min for both agents. Bupivacaine was found to be more effective in maintaining analgesics at 8-h period.[2] The amidoamine local anesthetic agents exhibit their action by binding to specific receptors, located on sodium channels located in nerves, thus, blocking ionic movements through these channels. Studies have reported that a single injection of 1% lignocaine can induce chondrotoxicity in addition to toxic effects on corneal endothelial cells, rotator cuff tenofibroblasts, human tumor cells, melanoma cell lines, and mesenchymal stem cells. Ropivacaine, on the other hand, has been demonstrated to exhibit decreased neuro- and cardiotoxicity; inhibition of platelet aggregation, and antibacterial action.[3]

Surgical extraction of posterior teeth, especially third molars, involves a certain level of difficulty. Peripheral neural sensitization is considered to be a major after-effect following surgical extractions.[4]

The aim of this study was to compare the esthetic and analgesic efficacy of lignocaine, ropivacaine, and bupivacaine in posterior tooth extractions.

  Materials and Methods Top

This study was conducted on 250 individuals (average age ± standard deviation = 22.9 ± 2.1 years) indicated for posterior tooth extractions. The study participants were randomly divided into three groups:

  1. Group 1: Individuals undergoing extractions under 2% lignocaine (n = 84)
  2. Group 2: Individuals undergoing extractions under bupivacaine (n = 86)
  3. Group 3: Individuals undergoing extractions under ropivacaine (n = 80).

This was a single-blind study when the surgeon was given an anesthetic cartridge without group identification. All anesthetic and surgical procedures were performed by a single operator. Data regarding vital signs such as pulse rate, blood pressure, pain during procedure, postoperative pain duration, and analgesic effects were monitored. Vital signs were monitored as per Meechan's protocol:[5]

  1. Immediately before anesthetic administration
  2. Five minutes following anesthetic administration
  3. Ten minutes following anesthetic administration
  4. Fifteen minutes following anesthetic administration
  5. Twenty minutes following anesthetic administration
  6. Twenty five minutes following anesthetic administration.

The anesthetic potency during surgical procedure was measured using Sisk (1986) criteria: (1) successful: no pain during procedure; (2) successful: pain during extraction but reinjection not required after initiating the procedure; (3) successful: here, there was pain during procedure, but no pain was present after the second injection; (4) limited success: pain after two injections but completion of surgery without third; (5) limited success: pain beginning after two injections but completion of procedure; (6) failure: pain beginning after first, again after second, third injection required; (7) failure: pain beginning after two injections, third injection required; and (8) failure: no anesthesia after two injections, third injection required or suspension of treatment.

The intensity of intraoperative pain was assessed by individuals themselves using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) as proposed by Briggs and Closs (1999) ranging from 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain). This scale was also employed for testing analgesic effect of tested local anesthetic.

Sample size calculation

The sample size was calculated using an estimated medium effect size – partial ƞ2 = 0.06, α error of 0.05, and 95% power of the study. Type I error was found at 0.05.

The statistical tool employed was analysis of variance for intergroup comparisons. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant, whereas <0.001 was considered to be extremely significant.

  Results Top

On comparing anesthetic and postoperative analgesic effects following administration, a significant difference was noted in onset (P < 0.01), and lignocaine demonstrated the least onset of anesthesia. Extremely significant differences were observed between duration of anesthetic activity, intensity difference postoperatively, time of first felt pain and after 6 h, time of consuming first analgesic, and number of analgesics consumed postoperatively [Table 1] and [Graph 1].
Table 1: Parameters related to anesthetic and postoperative analgesic action

Click here to view

Hemodynamic disorders observed were constant and demonstrated no significant side effects. Following injection of 2% lignocaine in the first 5 min, an increase in both systolic and diastolic blood pressures was seen, which was followed by a reduction in systolic pressure after 5 min, and a decrease in diastolic pressure after 10 min was seen. While on bupivacaine administration, a slight drop in systolic pressure was observed within the first 5 min which then increased slightly. Furthermore, a slight elevation in diastolic blood pressure was seen in the first 5 min or 10 min. Similar changes were observed with ropivacaine administration as well. However, these changes were nonsignificant [Table 2].
Table 2: Demonstrating vital parameters observed during procedures

Click here to view

  Discussion Top

According to Malamed, local/regional anesthesia is defined as “regional lack of sensation to painful stimulus along with temperature, pressure, touch, etc., due to reversible peripheral nerve conduction loss along specified pathways.”[6] A local anesthetic molecule is composed of two polar ends: (a) hydrophilic secondary or tertiary amino group and (b) lipophilic aromatic ring. Depending on the type of intermediate alkyl linkage between both the poles, these agents are classified into ester or amide anesthetic.[6]

The choice of anesthetic agent is based on three factors: (a) potency, (b) time taken for onset, and (c) duration of anesthesia.[7] Tijanic and Buric in their study on comparisons between anesthetic potentials of bupivacaine and ropivacaine measured: (a) quality of anesthesia, (b) success rate, (c) time of onset, (d) duration, (e) intensity of intraoperative pain, (f) blood pressure, and (g) pulse rate. Administration of 0.75% ropivacaine demonstrated successful anesthesia among 96.6% of the study participants. Statistical significance for all criteria was obtained for 0.75% ropivacaine. The duration of anesthesia for ropivacaine and bupivacaine was 412.17 ± 110.04 and 376.30 ± 98.51 min, respectively. The onset time was 151.50 ± 80.93 and 168 ± 79.73, respectively. The success rates were 96.6% and 93.3%, respectively. Furthermore, a lower intraoperative pain was observed with ropivacaine.[8]

Anesthetic duration is proportional to the extent of binding to proteins, whereas the onset of anesthetic action is dependent on factors such as anesthetic technique and intrinsic drug substance.[9] Bupivacaine is a long-acting anesthetic agent with its duration of action extending between 7–11 h and 9 h for inferior alveolar nerve block and infiltration anesthesia, respectively.[10] It has demonstrated longer anesthesia of soft tissues and reduced postoperative pain along with late peak in pain (12 h) and lesser intensity on VAS. However, it has been reported to cause high diastolic and low systolic blood pressures though these are not statistically significant.[11] However, it has been reported to have a narrow safety margin due to its cardio- and neurotoxic side effects.[12]

Ropivacaine is also a long-acting amide local anesthetic possessing vasoconstrictive property inherent within.[13] It is a monohydrate of 1-propyl-2',6'-pipecoloxylidide hydrochloride and is a S-enantiomer.[14] Its anesthetic half-life is up to 4.2 h and is required in lesser concentrations of 0.5% and 0.75% as compared to lignocaine (2%).[13] The reason for introduction of S-enantiomeric form over the racemic form was the wider safety margin, the same amount of analgesia, and less postoperative motor block. Ropivacaine shows a selective action by acting on Aδ and C nerve fibers than on Aβ.

Dada O (2019) in their study involving various concentrations of ropivacaine (0.75%, 0.5%, 0.375%, and 0.25%) in inferior alveolar nerve block in third molar extractions demonstrated that the 0.5% and 0.75% concentrations were most effective in producing rapid onset and prolonged pain control.[15] Anesthetic effects were observed at 0.5% and 0.75% at 6.0 ± 0.4 and 5.6 ± 0.4 h, respectively, whereas the other diluted contents were found to have significantly shorter durations of soft-tissue anesthesia apart from repeated injections.[15]

Postoperative pain can rebound as hyperalgesia following a peripheral nerve block.[16] Local anesthetics demonstrate an anti-inflammatory effect by blocking leukotriene B4 release from polymorphonuclear leukocytes. Furthermore, histamine release is blocked along with other inflammatory mediators. Local anesthetic agents (millimolar concentrations) have also been shown to possess antimicrobial activities both in vivo and in vitro. This activity is primarily bactericidal rather than bacteriostatic. 2% lignocaine has been demonstrated to inhibit the growth of  Escherichia More Details coli, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.[17],[18] Furthermore, Kaewjiaranai T et al. have shown a temperature- and concentration-dependent bactericidal activity exhibited by bupivacaine specifically against Staphylococcus epidermidis and E. coli.[19] While injecting local anesthetic agents, normal oral microflora can pass into tissues. These microbes are capable of causing suppurative infections or bacteremia. Thus, the bactericidal effect of these anesthetic agents can help suppress these infections.[20]

Badr N did a comparative analysis on analgesic effect of 0.25% and 0.5% bupivacaine concentrations in individuals with third molar extractions. Pain intensity was observed at 2-h and 24-h intervals. It was found that 0.5% bupivacaine had a better analgesic effect when compared to 0.25% concentrations.[21]

Mandibular block anesthesia can be difficult to achieve in certain individuals; hence, it shows variations in response among different individuals.[22] Adelusi EA et al. studied 41 individuals who underwent bilateral maxillary extractions for orthodontic treatment using a split-mouth technique where 0.5% and 0.25% bupivacaine were injected. No significant difference was observed between onset, pain during extraction, and duration of anesthesia. Based on these observations, the use of 0.25% bupivacaine was advocated.[23]

It has been postulated that local anesthetics act by blocking of neuronal sodium channels and membrane expansion. These agents act by altering the structure of the lipid bilayer by the lipophilic part of the anesthetic molecule. This process is termed as “membrane expansion.” This constitutes 10% of anesthetic activity while the remainder 90% by caused by membrane stabilization or condition blockage which results in a decrease in sodium conductance and depolarization.[24] These agents act by reversible blocking of nerve conduction distal to the site of injection.[25] Blocking of sodium channels impairs the generation of action potentials which are required for pain propagation. Thus, this block can result in motor and sensory nerve blockage.[26]

Ropivacaine has a half-life of 41 min after administration through intravenous route and a 94% plasma protein binding.[24] Ropivacaine has been to have a much safer anesthetic profile for medically complicated individuals as well.[27]

Bupivacaine has been reported to have a narrow safety margin due to its cardio- and neurotoxic side effects.[28] Furthermore, Mehta et al. demonstrated changes in cardiac activity by increase in QRS width caused by bupivacaine when compared to ropivacaine.[14] However, this agent has been demonstrated to produce extended anesthetic effect when tested using a liposomal delivery system for local infiltration in various surgical sites.[29]

Mishra et al. confirmed in their split-mouth study in periodontal surgeries a comparable efficacy of ropivacaine when compared with lignocaine with additional advantages of longer duration, better postoperative pain control, and reduced loss of blood during the procedure.[30] Furthermore, ropivacaine has shown comparable pharmacodynamic and kinetic properties to bupivacaine with lesser toxicity.[31]

Both bupivacaine and ropivacaine have been shown to demonstrate prolonged analgesia for 10.3 and 9.6 h, respectively, after third molar surgeries.[32] Brkovic et al. in their study have demonstrated a similar intensity of anesthesia using either ropivacaine and bupivacaine after employing the VAS and Verbal Rating Scale.[33]

Short-acting local anesthetics show faster time of onset and faster titrability. It also has additional advantages such as (1) less costlier; (2) easier monitoring, and (3) larger safety margin than long-acting anesthetic agents.[34] An effective peri- and postoperative pain management significantly affects patient morbidity.[35]

  Conclusion Top

This study demonstrated that ropivacaine, a long-acting amide anesthetic, provides better intraoperative and postoperative pain control during extractions of posterior mandibular teeth.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

  References Top

Shipton EA. New formulations of local anaesthetics-part I. Anesthesiol Res Pract 2012;2012:546409.  Back to cited text no. 1
Ebenezer V, Balakrishnan R, Rajarajan C, Ehimalai M. A comparative study of two local anaesthetic agents – Bupivacaine and lignocaine in dentistry. Int J Pharm Bio Sci 2013;4:955-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
Kang DK, Zhao LY, Wang HL. Cytotoxic effects of local anesthesia through lidocaine/ropivacaine on human melanoma cell lines. Rev Bras Anesthesiol 2016;66:594-602.  Back to cited text no. 3
Yamaguchi A, Sano K. Effectiveness of preemptive analigesics on postoperative pain following third molar surgery: Review of literature. Jpn Dent Sci Rev 2013;49:131-8.  Back to cited text no. 4
Meechan JG. A comparison of ropivacaine and lidocaine with epinephrine for intra-ligamentary anesthesia. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002;93:469-73.  Back to cited text no. 5
Sadath MA, Ramadorai AK, Reddy A, Muthusekhar MR, Jesudasan JS. The effectiveness of long acting amide local anesthetics in surgical removal of lower third molars – A systemic review. IOSRJ Pharm 2013;3:19-26.  Back to cited text no. 6
Rebolledo AS, Molina ED, Aytes LB, Escoda CG. Comparative study of the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine in inferior alveolar nerve block during surgical extraction of impacted third molars. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2007;12:E139-44.  Back to cited text no. 7
Tijanic M, Buric N. A randomized anesthetic potency comparison between ropivacaine and bupivacaine on the perioperative regional anesthesia in lower third molar surgery. J Cranio Maxillofac Surg 2019;47:1652-60.  Back to cited text no. 8
Ghosh A, Basu S, Maity C, Pachisia S, Sahu S, Ghosh S. Efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100.000 adrenaline as an effective alternative for achieving anesthesia during dental extraction. Indian J Dent Sci 2019;11:189-95.  Back to cited text no. 9
  [Full text]  
Bhagwat SA, Heredia A, Padhye LV. An in vivo double-blind randomized controlled study comparing the post-operative pain in single sitting root canal treatment under bupivacaine versus lignocaine used as a local anesthetic agent. Endodontol 2019;31:2-8.  Back to cited text no. 10
Pellicer-Chover H, Cervera-Ballester J, Sanchis-Bielsa JM, Peñarrocha-Diago MA, Peñarrocha-Diago M, García-Mira B. Comparative split-mouth study of the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 0.5% bupivacaine in impacted mandibular third molar extraction. J Clin Exp Dent 2013;5:e66-71.  Back to cited text no. 11
Ranjan R, Kumar S, Singh M. Comparison of efficacy of 0.75% ropivacaine and 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 adrenaline in pain control in extraction of mandibular posterior teeth: A double-blind study. Indian J Dent Res 2018;29:611-5.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
El-Sharrawy E, Yagiela JA. Anesthetic efficacy of different ropivacaine concentrations for inferior alveolar nerve block. Anesth Prog 2006;53:3-7.  Back to cited text no. 13
Mehta M, Goyal M, Goyal M, Aggarwal R, Bajaj H, Mahajan A. Assessment of efficacy of two different local anesthetic solutions in patients undergoing dental extraction. HECS Int J Comm Health Med Res 2019;5:100-2.  Back to cited text no. 14
Dada O, Gonzalez Zacarias A, Ongaigui C, Echeverria-Villalobos M, Kushelev M, Bergese SD, et al. Does rebound pain after peripheral nerve block for orthopedic surgery impact postoperative analgesia and opioid consumption? A narrative review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16:3257-69.  Back to cited text no. 15
Hollmann MW, Durieux ME. Local anesthetics and the inflammatory response. A new therapeutic indication? Anesthesiol 2000;93:858-75.  Back to cited text no. 16
Weinstein MP, Maderazo E, Tilton R, Maggini G, Quintiliani R. Further observations on the antimicrobial effects of local anesthetic agents. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 1975;17:369-74.  Back to cited text no. 17
Sakuragi T, Ishino H, Dan K. Bactericidal activity of preservative-free bupivacaine on microorganisms in the human skin flora. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1998;42:1096-9.  Back to cited text no. 18
Kaewjiaranai T, Srisatjaluk RL, Sakdajeyont W, Pairuchvej V, Wongsirichat N. The efficiency of opioid anesthetics as antimicrobial agents: A review of use in dentistry. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 2018;18:223-33.  Back to cited text no. 19
Dhanrajani P, Chung P. Comparative study of analgesia with bupivacaine 0.25% versus 0.5% for third molar removal under general anesthesia. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 2016;16:117-22.  Back to cited text no. 20
Badr N, Aps J. Efficacy of dental local anesthetics: A review. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 2018;18:319-32.  Back to cited text no. 21
Saha A, Shah S, Waknis P, Aher S, Bhujbal P, Vaswani V. An in vivo study comparing efficacy of 0.25% and 0.5% bupivacaine in infraorbital nerve block for postoperative analgesia. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 2019;19:209-15.  Back to cited text no. 22
Adelusi EA, Abcose OB, Gbolahan OO. Post intra-alveolar extraction analgesia of bupivacaine and lidocaine: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Dentistry 2019;9:4-11.  Back to cited text no. 23
Erichsen CJ, Sjövall J, Kehlet H, Hedlund C, Arvidsson T. Pharmacokinetics and analgesic effect of ropivacaine during continuous epidural infusion for postoperative pain relief. Anesthesiology 1996;84:834-42.  Back to cited text no. 24
Giovannitti JA Jr., Rosenberg MB, Phero JC. Pharmacology of local anesthetics used in oral surgery. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2013;25:453-65, vi.  Back to cited text no. 25
Culp WC Jr., Culp WC. Practical application of local anesthetics. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011;22:111-8.  Back to cited text no. 26
Brajkovic D, Biocanin V, Milic M, Vudic M, Petrovic R, Brkovic B. Quality of analgesia after third molar surgery: A randomized double-blind study of levobupivacaine, bupivacaine and lidocaine with epinephrine. Vojnosanit Pregl 2015;72:50-6.  Back to cited text no. 27
Crimoli V, Favia G, Lomongelli L, Tempesta A, Brienza N. The effectivenss of ropivacaine and mepivacaine in the post-operative pain after third lower molar surgery. Int J Med Sci 2015;12:862-6.  Back to cited text no. 28
Sakamoto B, Keiser S, Meldrum R, Harker G, Freese A. Efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine infiltration on the management of total knee arthroplasty. JAMA Surg 2017;152:90-5.  Back to cited text no. 29
Mishra A, Lalani Z, Kalakonda B, Krishnan P, Pandey R, Reddy K. Comparative evaluation of hemodynamic, vasoconstrictive, and SpO2 variability during different stages of periodontal surgery performed using 0.5% ropivacaine or 2% lignocaine HCl (1:80,000 adrenaline) local anesthesia: A randomized, double-blind, split-mouth pilot study. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2018;22:243-8.  Back to cited text no. 30
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
Jørgensen H, Fomsgaard JS, Dirks J, Wetterslev J, Dahl JB. Effect of continuous epidural 0.2% ropivacaine vs. 0.2% bupivacaine on postoperative pain, motor block and gastrointestinal function after abdominal hysterectomy. Br J Anaesth 2000;84:144-50.  Back to cited text no. 31
Mansour NA, Al-Belasy FA, Tarofik MA, Marzouk HA. Ropivacaine vs. bupivacine in postoperative pain control. J Biotechnol Biomat 2012;2:4-11.  Back to cited text no. 32
Brkovic B, Slojic D, Colic S, Milenkovic A, Todorovic L. Analgesic efficacy of 0.75% ropivacaine for lower third molar surgery. Br J Stomatol 2008;12:31-3.  Back to cited text no. 33
Ghisi B, Fanelli A, Jouguelet-Lacoste J, Colla LL, Amoux AS, Chelly JE. Liidocaine versus ropivacaine forpost-operative continuous paravertabral nerve blocks in patients undergoing laparoscopic bowel surgery: A randomized, controlled, double-blinded pilot study. Local Region Anesthes 2015;8:71-7.  Back to cited text no. 34
Deo SP. Role of addition of dexamethasone to lignocaine 2% with adrenaline in dental nerve blocks for third molar surgery: A prospective randomized control trial. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2016;6:260-6.  Back to cited text no. 35
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  


  [Table 1], [Table 2]


Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

  In this article
Materials and Me...
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded25    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal