Anesthetic efficacy of single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine compared to routine inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% lidocaine during bilateral extraction of mandibular primary molars: a randomized controlled trial
- PMID: 33585685
- PMCID: PMC7871180
- DOI: 10.17245/jdapm.2021.21.1.61
Anesthetic efficacy of single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine compared to routine inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% lidocaine during bilateral extraction of mandibular primary molars: a randomized controlled trial
Abstract
Background: Inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) using lidocaine 2% is commonly used for anesthetizing primary mandibular molars; however, this technique has the highest level of patient discomfort compared to other local anesthesia techniques. Therefore, alternative anesthesia techniques are necessary. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with IANB using 2% lidocaine, for the bilateral extraction of primary mandibular molars.
Methods: The present study was conducted on 30 patients aged between 6 and 9 years, who required the extraction of bilateral primary mandibular molars. The patients were randomly divided into two groups as follows: In the first session, Group A received IANB with lidocaine 2% and group B received infiltration with articaine 4%. In the second session, another injection method was performed on the opposite side. The Wong-Baker Facial Pain scale (WBFPS), Face Leg Activity Cry, and Consolability (FLACC), and physiologic parameters were used to assess pain perception.
Results: The independent t-test showed no statistically significant difference in blood pressure and heart rate before and after extraction (P > 0.05). The mean FLACC index in the lidocaine and articaine groups was 0.89 and 1.36, respectively; there was no statistically significant difference between them (P > 0.05). According to the results of the chi-square test, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups for WBFPS (P > 0.05).
Conclusion: The articaine infiltration technique may be an alternative to the IANB for the extraction of primary mandibular molars.
Keywords: Articaine; Buccal Infiltration; Children; Lidocaine; Tooth Extraction.
Copyright © 2021 Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.
Conflict of interest statement
CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
-
- Odabaş ME, Çınar C, Deveci C, Alaçam A. Comparison of the anesthetic efficacy of articaine and mepivacaine in pediatric patients: a randomized, double-blind study. Pediatr Dent. 2012;34:42–45. - PubMed
-
- Kuscu OO, Akyuz S. Is it the injection device or the anxiety experienced that causes pain during dental local anaesthesia? Int J Paediatr Dent. 2008;18:139–145. - PubMed
-
- Smolarek PC, Wambier LM, Siqueira Silva L, Chibinski ACR. Does computerized anaesthesia reduce pain during local anaesthesia in paediatric patients for dental treatment? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2020;30:118–135. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
