Comparison of Effectiveness in the Control Of Pain In Surgery Between Articain 4% With Adrenaline 1:100.000 and Lidocaina 2% With Adrenaline 1:100.000 In Inferior Third Molars Extractions: Randomized Clinical Study

INTERVENTION: Carticaine Experimental group: 30 patients of both genders, without systemic disorders, that will be performed mandibular third molars extractions, split‐mouth model, with different anesthetics, one being 4% articaine with 1: 100,000 and the other lidocaine 1: 100,000. Bilateral extraction should be performed in a randomized, prospective and without placebo‐control , in a period of more than 21 days between one and another, blinded to the patient, operator and responsable to the statistics Lidocaine Procedure/surgery CONDITION: Molar Non‐erupted third molars. Molar. ; Tooth, Unerupted ; Molar Tooth, Unerupted PRIMARY OUTCOME: 1. Increased efficacy of 4% articaine in controlling intraoperative pain over 2% lidocaine.; ; 2.Faster anesthetic induction time for 4% articaine over 2% lidocaine It was expected results that confirm the current literature or the contraposition of the same, regarding the best anesthetic base; postoperative pain control is the articaine (contraposition of the literature) or reaffirm the literature (lidocaine) with a; delineation.Using the randomizend comparision method, split‐mouth model, between two symmetrical teeth to be extracted with different anesthetic, using the visual analogue pain scale number ; to verify differences between two procedures. SECONDARY OUTCOME: No secundary results are expected INCLUSION CRITERIA: Pacients with correct indication for third molars removal;both genders; with ages between 18 and 45 years; indication analyzed with imaginological exams ( panoramic or periapical radiographic); without any systemic diseases without any periodontal disease; simetric mandibular third molars, with similar class and position;With 2/3 of root formation;pacients that agreed with the Consent Term