scholarly journals Assessing the Pain Reaction of Children and Evaluation of Efficacy of Buccal Infiltration with Articaine and Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block with Lignocaine for Pulp Therapy in Primary Mandibular Second Molars

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-339
Author(s):  
G Madhavi ◽  
Daneswari Velagala ◽  
Nagireddy Venugopal Reddy ◽  
P Pranathi
2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 301-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Radhika Chopra ◽  
Mohita Marwaha ◽  
Kalpana Bansal ◽  
Meenu Mittal

Objective: Failure of inferior alveolar nerve block in achieving profound anesthesia of the pulp due to various reasons has led to the introduction of more potent local anesthetic agents like articaine. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of buccal infiltration with articaine in achieving pulpal anesthesia of primary molars as compared to inferior alveolar nerve block with lignocaine. Study design: 30 patients (4–8 years) with indication of pulp therapy in at least two mandibular primary molars were selected. Patients were randomly assigned to receive nerve block with lignocaine or infiltration with articaine on first appointment and the other solution on second appointment. All the pulpotomies and pulpectomies were performed by a pediatric dentist. Two researchers standing at a distance of 1.5 m recorded the Pain Scores and Sound, Eye, Motor (SEM) scores. After the completion of procedure, the patient was asked to record the Facial Image score and Heft-Parker Visual Analogue Score (HP-VAS). Results: Pain Score recorded at the time of injection showed significantly more movements with block as compared to infiltration (p<0.001). SEM scores at time of pulp extirpation were also higher for block than infiltration (p<0.001). Conclusion: Articaine infiltration has the potential to replace inferior alveolar nerve block for primary mandibular molars.


2017 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 80-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geraldo Prisco da Silva-Junior ◽  
Liane Maciel de Almeida Souza ◽  
Francisco Carlos Groppo

In order to compare the efficacy of lidocaine and articaine for pain control during third molar surgery, 160 patients presenting bilateral asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars were selected. They received 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 during inferior alveolar nerve block. In group 1 (n = 80), an infiltrative injection of 0.9 mL of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 was performed in buccal-distal mucosa of the third molar. Group 2 (n = 80) received 0.9 mL of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 in the contralateral side. All procedures were performed at the same visit, by a single operator, in a double-blind and parallel design. The duration of each surgery and the moment when the patient expressed pain were noted. Data were analyzed by nonpaired t test and chi-square test (alpha = 5%). Duration of surgery did not differ (p = .83) between Groups 1 (19.8 ± 2.3 minutes) and 2 (19.7 ± 3.0 minutes). Pain was expressed more in group 1 (26.3%) than in group 2 (10%) (odds ratio = 3.2, p = .0138). In both groups, tooth sectioning was the most painful event (p < .0001). No influence of gender (p = .85) or age (p = .96) was observed in pain response. Buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 showed more efficacy than 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 when used in combination with inferior alveolar nerve block in controlling intraoperative pain related to impacted mandibular third molar surgery.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document