The results calculated by the authors do not show any statistically noteworthy differences for commencement and duration of anesthesia between the articaine and Lidocaine solutions.It is manifested that, Lidocaine has been extensively used to produce local anesthesia. The authors agree that Articaine is an amide-type local anesthetic and is in use for the past 37 years also, they agree that Articaine is equivalent to, but not superior to, prilocaine for infiltration anesthesia. The authors state that results of comparative studies with lidocaine have been contradictory, because of the variation of epinephrine in the anesthetic agent. Lidocaine with epinephrine is the drug of choice in clinical practice in Finland but for patients with cardiovascular disorders, articaine with its lower epinephrine content is usually chosen with the intention of evading the systemic side effects of epinephrine. The authors have specified the purpose of the study to get a comparative account for the commencement of anesthesia and the duration of action of the commonly used solutions of 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine.The authors have selected twenty healthy volunteers (12 female, 8 male) with a mean age of 23.8 yr. The subjects were dental students with no history of allergic reaction to amide-type anesthetic agents and were not on regular medications and had intact lateral incisors. The authors got the protocol for the study, approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Turku and Turku University Central Hospital.The test solutions were- 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine (Ultracain® DS, Hoechst AG, Frankfurt, Germany) and 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine (Xylocaine ®-Adrenaline, Astra, S6dertalje, Sweden).Infiltration anesthesia of the upper lateral incisor was carried out twice in all subjects in such way that each subject received both test solutions.