RESUMO
Objective: The present study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of different local anesthetic techniques for pain management in pediatric dental procedures. Goal is to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of various local anesthetic methods to identify the most effective approach in reducing pain and discomfort during dental treatments in children. Methods: A prospective, randomized clinical trial was conducted with 60 pediatric patients (aged 3 to 10 years) undergoing dental procedures in a single dental clinic. The participants were randomly assigned into three groups: Group A received conventional infiltration anesthesia (lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000), Group B received topical anesthesia followed by the same infiltration anesthesia, and Group C received intraosseous anesthesia using articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000. The patients' demographic data, treatment details, and pre-procedure anxiety levels were recorded. Results: The study demonstrated that all three local anesthetic techniques effectively managed pain during pediatric dental procedures. However, Group C, which received intraosseous anesthesia, showed significantly lower pain scores (mean ± standard deviation) compared to Group A and Group B: 1.5 ± 0.6, 2.3 ± 0.8, and 2.1 ± 0.7, respectively (P < 0.05). Additionally, Group C exhibited a shorter onset of anesthesia compared to Group A and Group B, with mean onset times of 1.8 ± 0.4, 3.2 ± 0.6, and 2.9 ± 0.5 minutes, respectively (P < 0.001). No significant differences in adverse events or post-procedure complications among the groups. Conclusion: Intraosseous anesthesia (articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000) was found most effective local anesthetic technique for pain management during pediatric dental procedures.
RESUMO
Background: Effective endodontic instrumentation aims to remove microorganisms, debris, and tissue from the root canal while maintaining dentinal integrity. This study compares dentinal defect incidence following canal preparation with different hand files, nickel-titanium rotary files, and reciprocating files. Materials and Methods: Eighty single-rooted mandibular premolars with mature apices were collected. Four groups (n = 20) were established based on canal patency establishment, canal preparation technique, irrigation solution, and final irrigation. After root sectioning at 3 mm, 6 mm, and 9 mm from the apex, slices were examined under a stereomicroscope, and dentinal defects were recorded. A second examiner reviewed the images. Results: The results showed significant difference of P = 0.031 among Hand files vs. Rotary ProTaper files: In Hand files vs. Reciprocating WaveOne files significant difference was P = 0.048, and for rotary ProTaper files vs. Reciprocating WaveOne files: No significant difference (P = 0.643). Dentinal defect counts were similar at 3 mm, 6 mm, and 9 mm. Statistically significant variation was observed between hand files and rotary files, as well as hand files and reciprocating files. Conclusion: Both rotary and reciprocating files showed a statistically significant increase in dentinal defect incidence compared to hand files. However, clinical implications should be considered cautiously. Instrumentation technique selection should be based on clinical context, operator experience, and patient factors. Further clinical studies are needed for validation.
