Background: Articaine, commercially available in South Korea from 2004, is widely being used for dental treatments. In the surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars, one of the most common procedures in oral and maxillofacial surgery, the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine, both with 1：100,000 epinephrine, was compared. Methods: A randomized double-blind clinical trial was conducted of 80 patients for bilateral surgical extraction of mandibular third molars with informed consents. One operator carried out the routine surgical procedures using local anesthetic 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine with the same concentration of vasoconstrictor. Latency, duration of anesthesia and the amount of anesthetic solution were recorded. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the intraoperative pain. Results: The pain VAS scores reported similar anesthetic effect with both local anesthetics. Not in the latency of anesthesia and the amount of anesthetic solution, statistically significant difference was found in the mean duration of anesthesia. Conclusions: It was concluded that 4% articaine could offer better or at least the same clinical feasibility compared to 2% lidocaine, particularly in terms of the duration of the local anesthesia for common dental treatments.