RESUMEN

Background: Many dentists use articaine as their choice of local anesthetic agent. However, the use of articaine is limited to inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANBs), and literature data are scarce concerning its perception and choice among various dental practitioners. Aim: The aim of the present study was to assess the extent of articaine use as a local anesthetic in dentistry, its perception basis, and the consistency of evidence of the efficacy and safety of articaine in recent practice. Methods: The present study utilized a survey tool that was given to all the participating dental practitioners, and the participants were given five minutes to fill out the survey questionnaire. The questionnaire was in English and had 14 questions to be answered. The data gathered were statistically assessed to formulate the results. Results: The results of this cross-sectional survey reported that articaine is used as a choice of local anesthetic by more than half of the participating dental practitioners. Sixty percent (n = 480) participants used articaine in their practice, followed by lidocaine, which was used by 33% (n = 264) dental practitioners, mepivacaine by 2% (n = 16) participants, prilocaine by 1% (n = 8) dental practitioners, and other local anesthetics by 4% (n = 32) participants, respectively. Concerning the safety and efficacy of articaine use, 43% used it for all procedures except for IANBs, whereas 20% used it for all procedures, including IANBs. Conclusion: Despite the reported efficacy and safety of articaine as a local anesthetic for all dental procedures, many dental practitioners refrain from using it, especially for IANBs. These data depict a difference between current research evidence and reported clinical practice.