Talk:Articaine

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Chemicals Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Articaine.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This article was created or improved by the University of Dundee Oral Health Wikipedia Group in 2016.

Untitled

it's not an advertisement; statements of increased usage are factual.--Jeff 04:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That said, this article still sucks. I'm no good at this pharmacology stuff. someone who knows what they're doing please help out :D--Jeff 04:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subject matter

This looks like a standard local anesthetic preparation - carticaine as the anesthetic, and epinephrine to reduce bleeding. I'm not sure about the significance of the subject. Unless a case can be made for notability the article may well end up deleted.

Having said that, I see that articaine or carticaine, the active ingredient, are still missing an article. Maybe someone could have a stab at that. Pilatus 05:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When did Articadent (Dentsply) become available in the United States?

This article currently says "Articadent (Dentsply) became available in the United States in October of 2010" -- but today's date is 15 April 2010, so the date of October 2010 must be an error? I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and I don't know what date should be here, so I'm not going to change this myself -- but we surely can't speak of October 2010 in the past tense, as of today. JeffSmith2010 (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Septocaine → Articaine – {reason for move} copied from the entry on the WP:RM page

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Support Pilatus 17:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jeff 08:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

As articaine is the INN of the relevant active ingredient (hey, it's a local anesthetic) and Septocaine is merely a trade name of a preparation I'd suggest a move to the INN. Also, the article on articaine, a newer ester/amide anesthetic is still missing. Pilatus 17:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty good reasoning I think, but let me fill in some details of what I think. I started this article because I went to the dentist the other day, asked my dentist "So what kind of whatevercaine are you guys using these days" and my dentist said he was using Septocaine. I hadn't ever heard of it before, so I went to the Wikipedia List of drugs, of which Septocaine was listed on List_of_drugs:_Se-Sh. Seeing the link was red, I did some internet research and filled in what blanks a layman could, because the list of drugs category page states "Note: Please contribute by editing or expanding these lists. Refer to this talk page for contributor notes." so that's what I did. So, getting to my point, if the stated goal is to make a page (atleast a stub) for every drug, brand name or not, then I figure we should spend our extra time throwing in an article about articaine in addition to this one, rather than moving this one (which would have to be re-written when renamed for articaine anyway). --Jeff 00:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the entry for Xylocaine, which is another "-caine" preparation, you will be redirected to Lidocaine, which is the INN for the drug. That article says in the introduction that a lidocaine preparation is also marketed as xylocaine by AstraZeneca. (Xylocaine contains epinephrine, too.) To be consistent, we should do the same thing with this drug - move the entry to "articaine" and say in the introduction that Septocaine is a preparation marketed by such-and-such.

(Note to self: track down the FDA-mandated prescription information. Those data sheets are pretty coprehensive.) Pilatus 02:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that does make sense to bring it inline with other articles with redirects and such, although personally, I still think it would be useful if each brand named drug had its own page describing the specific preperation, because each preperation is different. For instance, different preperations of articaine seem to use different concentrations of epinephrine, which may or may not be included in an article about articaine.--Jeff 05:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the US it's called zorcaine and distributed by Cook-Waite, a subsidiary of Kodak. [1] No idea if it goes under yet another name in Japan. What I'm saying is that we might have a maintenance problem if we try to keep seperate articles for all the names the ingredient is known as. We can always (we should) have a paragraph or two that adds some details about the preparation and the manufacturers. Pilatus 14:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 07:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Articaine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.drmalamed.com/downloads/Permanent_Nerve_Damage_IA.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://jada.ada.org/cgi/content/full/131/7/901
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060912043107/http://jada.highwire.org:80/cgi/reprint/126/8/1150 to http://jada.highwire.org/cgi/reprint/126/8/1150

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacology

What is the pharmacology of this drug? Pharmacokinetics, and if it has any effects on the brain like procaine or cocaine 198.24.20.166 (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]