Anesthetic Effect of 2% Amitriptyline Versus 2% Lidocaine: A Comparative Evaluation.

Introduction A common dental problem is the fear of pain during needle prick for giving local anesthesia (LA). The needle prick pain during dental procedures often varies with sex and age. Perception of pain depends on various factors, which can be psychological and biological. This perception of pain may change the behavior of patients toward dental treatments. Traditionally, lidocaine gel formulation was utilized before the parenteral dosage form. The lidocaine gel formulation is considered the drug of choice for LA in dental surgery. Currently, amitriptyline has been utilized in dental practice because of its beneficial pharmacology. Hence, the present study has been undertaken to compare the anesthetic ability of amitriptyline as an intraoral topical anesthetic agent with lidocaine gel. Methods This study was a comparative clinical study between two medications' anesthetic properties. This study included 120 patients indicated for bilateral orthodontics (the subdivision of dentistry that emphasizes identifying necessary interventions for the malocclusion of teeth) procedures. All the subjects were divided into amitriptyline and lidocaine groups. Both anesthetic gels were applied at separate sites before the injection of LA. The time of the onset of anesthesia was noted and analyzed. Patients were selected on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Individuals aged 18 to 30 years who were systemically healthy and orthodontically indicated for bilateral premolar extraction were included in this study. Again, patients with a history of neurological disorders and allergies to amitriptyline and lidocaine were excluded from the current study. Results Significant differences emerged between groups at five and 10 minutes, with amitriptyline-induced partial numbness (36.7% and 6.7%). At 40 and 45 minutes, both groups showed varied partial and complete numbness, with amitriptyline leading to partial recovery (23.3% and 73.3% complete numbness, 23.3% partial recovery) and lidocaine resulting in partial recovery (81.7%). When comparing the visual analog scale (VAS) scores, both groups exhibited a similar simultaneous effect at 15 minutes. Nonetheless, amitriptyline displayed significantly lower scores at 25 and 35 minutes (p < 0.001) in comparison to lidocaine. Similar observations were made when controlling for pain intensity. Conclusion It was concluded that amitriptyline holds both anesthetic and analgesic properties. Nevertheless, this study was unable to generalize the study findings because of the small sample size and being a single-center study. However, the VAS scores of anesthetic and analgesic pharmacodynamics properties of amitriptyline were statistically significantly lower than lidocaine, particularly at 25 and 35 minutes. Additionally, amitriptyline-induced anesthetic and analgesic pharmacology, especially pharmacokinetics properties, depends on the location and pattern of pain.