Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine infiltration versus 2% lignocaine inferior alveolar nerve block for extraction of primary mandibular molars: A prospective, split-mouth, randomized controlled trial
Context: Control of pain during dental treatment is an essential aspect of pediatric dentistry. Aims: This study was conducted to evaluate and compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine buccal infiltration with 2% lignocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for primary mandibular molar extr...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Book |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications,
2021-01-01T00:00:00Z.
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Connect to this object online. |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Context: Control of pain during dental treatment is an essential aspect of pediatric dentistry. Aims: This study was conducted to evaluate and compare the anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine buccal infiltration with 2% lignocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for primary mandibular molar extractions. Settings and Design: The study was a prospective, split-mouth, randomized controlled trial. Methods: Bilateral symmetrical carious primary mandibular molar (n = 92) extractions in 46 healthy children aged 5-10 years were included in this randomized controlled trial. Extraction was performed on one side using 4% of articaine buccal infiltration and on the contralateral side using 2% lignocaine IANB in two subsequent appointments. Pain and behavior were assessed at baseline, during injection and extraction using Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale, Modified Behavior Pain Scale (MBPS), and Frankl Behavior Rating Scale. Statistical Analysis Used: Values thus obtained were statistically analyzed by one-way analysis of variance test and compared using independent samples test. Results: According to MBPS, the mean value of pain experienced in the form of cry during injection was reported to be more for 2% lignocaine IANB (1.76) as compared to 4% articaine buccal infiltration (1.30), which was statistically significant (P = 0.024). Comparison of behavior depicted showed no statistically significant difference between the groups. Conclusion: Buccal infiltration with 4% articaine can be utilized as an effective alternative to 2% lignocaine IANB for primary mandibular molar extractions. |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | 0970-4388 1998-3905 10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_260_21 |