Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jan-Mar;11(1):160-164.
doi: 10.4103/0259-1162.186589.

The Effectiveness of Articaine and Lidocaine Single Buccal Infiltration versus Conventional Buccal and Palatal Injection Using Lidocaine during Primary Maxillary Molar Extraction: A Randomized Control Trial

Naveen Kumar Reddy Kolli  1 , S V S G Nirmala  1 , Sivakumar Nuvvula  1
Affiliations

The Effectiveness of Articaine and Lidocaine Single Buccal Infiltration versus Conventional Buccal and Palatal Injection Using Lidocaine during Primary Maxillary Molar Extraction: A Randomized Control Trial

Naveen Kumar Reddy Kolli et al. Anesth Essays Res. 2017 Jan-Mar.

Abstract

Background: Despite the advent of modern injection techniques, palatal injection continues to be a painful experience for children.

Aims: To compare the pain experienced during extraction of maxillary primary molars with conventional lignocaine anesthesia versus lignocaine and articaine buccal infiltration in children aged 6-14 years.

Materials and methods: A prospective randomized triple blinded study was conducted with ninety children (n = 90), randomly allocated to receive lignocaine conventional anesthesia (Group I [control group]), and buccal infiltration using articaine (Group II [articaine group]) or lignocaine (Group III [lignocaine group]). A composite score of self-report (faces pain scale-revised), behavioral measure (face legs activity cry consolability scale), and a physiological response (pulse rate) was measured following maxillary primary molar extraction.

Statistical analysis used: To test the mean difference between two groups, Students' t-test was used and among the three groups, one-way ANOVA with post hoc test was used.

Results: Articaine group had significantly lower pain scores for self-report (P < 000.1) and behavioral measures (P < 000.1) while there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) between articaine and control groups during primary maxillary molar extraction.

Conclusion: Maxillary primary molar extraction procedure can be successfully accomplished by bypassing the palatal injection. Articaine buccal infiltration can be considered as an alternative to conventional local anesthesia for the extraction of maxillary primary molars.

Keywords: Articaine; buccal administration; children; lignocaine; local anesthesia; maxillary primary molars; palatal injection.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONSORT flow diagram.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Malamed S. Handbook of Local Anesthesia. 6th ed. St. Louis, MO: CV Mosby; 2013.
    1. McArdle BF. Painless palatal anesthesia. J Am Dent Assoc. 1997;128:647. - PubMed
    1. Ram D, Peretz B. Administering local anaesthesia to paediatric dental patients-current status and prospects for the future. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2002;12:80–9. - PubMed
    1. Harker T. What injection? Br Dent J. 1997;182:50. - PubMed
    1. Meechan JG, Winter RA. A comparison of topical anaesthesia and electronic nerve stimulation for reducing the pain of intra-oral injections. Br Dent J. 1996;181:333–5. - PubMed