Buccal versus buccal palatal infiltration for pulpal anesthesia using 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine: A randomized controlled trial.

Background: The inability in achieving complete pulpal anesthesia with standard buccal infiltration especially in cases with SIP used for maxillary teeth. The study aimed to compare the anesthetic efficacy of buccal and buccal plus palatal infiltration technique using 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine in permanent maxillary first molars with the diagnosis of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP). Material and method: One hundred and twenty-three patients with clinical diagnosis of SIP, aged 18-50 years were randomly allocated to three treatment groups (N = 41). Group 1(BIL): Buccal infiltration technique using 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline. Group 2(BPIL): combination of buccal plus palatal infiltration using 2% Lidocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline. Group 3(BIA): Buccal infiltration using 4% articaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline. Pain intensity of patients were recorded before and after the administration of local anesthesia during endodontic procedure that is during caries removal, access preparation and pulp removal using Heft-Parker Visual Analog Scale (HP-VAS). Success was defined by "no pain (0 mm)" or "mild pain (0-54 mm)" during endodontic procedure. The anesthetic efficacy rates were analyzed using chi-square tests, age differences using one-way ANOVA. Results: The final analysis included total of 117 patients. Higher success was observed in group II (85%) in comparison to group I (69%) and group III (74%), but the difference was statistically nonsignificant (p > 0.05). Our results demonstrated a nonsignificant difference between genders in all three groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The use of buccal plus palatal infiltration and 4% articaine can provide effective anesthesia as standard buccal infiltration and 2% lidocaine for patients with SIP in maxillary first molars.

Articaine versus Lidocaine in only buccal infiltration anesthesia for the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth. A prospective split-mouth randomized-controlled clinical study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of a single labial infiltration of 4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine for the extraction of mandibular anterior teeth without an additional lingual injection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized-controlled, split-mouth clinical study was implemented. Healthy adult patients seeking bilateral extraction of mandibular anterior teeth were included in this study. Teeth extractions were randomly assigned to two equal groups, where one mandibular anterior tooth was extracted using a solitary labial infiltration of either 4% articaine (the study group) or 2% lidocaine (the control group). After 14 days, the other mandibular anterior tooth was extracted using the other local anesthetic agent. The selection of the anesthetic agent injected in the first session was done in a randomized fashion. After 5 min of local anesthetic injection, the tooth was extracted, and each patient was asked to record the intensity of the extraction pain using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were included in the study. The efficacy of a single labial injection for mandibular anterior teeth extraction was established by the fact that none of the patients in the study or control group required re-administration of local anesthesia. The mean VAS for pain control during tooth extraction was 1.16 ± 0.93 for the articaine group and 1.71 ± 0.90 for the lidocaine group. The pain score showed a statistically significant decrease in the articaine group compared to that in the lidocaine group (P = 0.017). CONCLUSION: Although the anesthetic effects of only buccal infiltration of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine for extraction of mandibular anterior teeth were comparable, the use of 4% articaine would have more effective and predictable outcomes. CLINICALTRIALS: ORG: (ID: NCT05223075) 3/2/2022.

A Split-Mouth Clinical Comparative Evaluation of the Anesthetic Efficacy of Articaine and Lignocaine for Maxillary Bicuspids Extraction.

Aim The study compared the anesthetic effectiveness of articaine and lignocaine when premolars are extracted bilaterally for orthodontic purposes. Material and methods This prospective split-mouth study was performed on 30 cases selected from orthodontic referral patients reporting to the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department at Maharaja Ganga Singh Dental College and Research Center, Rajasthan, India, for bilateral extraction of premolars under local anesthesia. We used 4% articaine hydrochloride and adrenaline 1:100000 (AH) as group A and 2% lignocaine hydrochloride with adrenaline 1:100000 (LH) on the control side as group B. For premolar anesthetization, 0.6-1.6 ml of AH and 1-2 ml of LH were injected submucosally in the buccal vestibular area. The extraction procedure was then carried out after achieving adequate anesthesia. The pain was assessed with Visual Analog Scale. The average onset time and duration of anesthesia were recorded. Data collected were summarized with descriptive statistics. The SPSS version 23.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York) was used for data entry, validation, and analysis. Means of continuous variables were compared using the student t-test. All tests were 2-tailed and significant at equal or less than 0.05. (p≤0.05). Results When comparing the overall anesthetic efficiency, Group A had a lower overall pain score of 0.43 while Group B had a higher overall pain score of 2.9. The average onset time of anesthesia in Group A was 1.2 minutes and 2.55 minutes in Group B. In Group A, the average duration of anesthesia was 70 minutes, and 46.5 minutes in Group B. These parameters were statistically significant with a p-value of <0.05. Conclusion The study concluded that as an alternative to lignocaine, articaine could be used effectively for maxillary premolar extractions for orthodontic reasons obviating palatal injection which is very painful to the patient.

BUCCAL INFILTRATION WITH 4% ARTICAINE MAY BE AN ALTERNATIVE OPTION TO INFERIOR ALVEOLAR NERVE BLOCK WITH 2% LIDOCAINE FOR PULP THERAPY IN PRIMARY MANDIBULAR MOLARS.

ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: Can 4% Articaine Buccal Infiltration Replace Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block (IANB) with 2% Xylocaine for Pulp Therapy in Primary Mandibular Molars? A Systematic Review. Sunny P Tirupathi, Srinitya Rajasekhar, Mayuri Ganesh, Abhishek Vamshi, David Tyro, Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2021;14(3):420-425. SOURCE OF FUNDING: The authors did not state any funding support. TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN: Systematic review.

EFFICACY OF 4% ARTICAINE BUCCAL INFILTRATION VERSUS INFERIOR ALVEOLAR NERVE BLOCK FOR MANDIBULAR MOLARS WITH SYMPTOMATIC IRREVERSIBLE PULPITIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the anesthetic efficacy of buccal infiltration (BI) using 4% articaine vs 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched using MESH terms and specific keywords. Included articles were Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs), which compared 4% articaine BI vs conventional IANB in terms of the efficacy of pulpal anesthesia and success rate. The quality assessment of included studies was done according to the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Studies were quantitatively assessed using fixed or random effect models. RESULTS: Out of 756 articles, 5 RCT studies were included with a total number of 500 patients: 231 in 4% articaine BI group, 150 in 2% lidocaine IANB group, and 119 in 4% articaine IANB group. Our meta-analysis results showed that patients anesthetized with 4% articaine BI had a similar success rate compared to 2% lidocaine IANB [pooled RD: 0.14 (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.29); P = .08]. Similarly, there was non-significant difference when compared to 4% articaine IANB [RD:-0.01 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.11; P = .86)]. Patients anesthetized with 4% articaine BI presented comparable pain scores compared to IANB (4% articaine or 2% lidocaine) [pooled MD: -0.14 (95% CI, -0.38 to 0.11); P = .27]. Regarding quality assessment, 3 studies were considered to have a low risk of bias, one study has an unclear risk of bias, and one study has a high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: 4% articaine BI showed comparable results in terms of pain relief and success rate in comparison with 2% lidocaine IANB or 4% articaine IANB. However, due to the limited number and small sample size of included studies, these findings should be considered carefully, and further studies are required to confirm our findings.

Comparative Evaluation of Anesthetic Efficacy of 4% Articaine and 2% Lidocaine for Buccal Infiltration in Adult Patients with Irreversible Pulpitis of Maxillary First Molar: A Prospective Randomized Study.

Objective: The purpose of this prospective, randomized study was to evaluate and compare the anesthetic efficacy of 0.8 ml of 4% articaine and 1.6 ml of 2% lidocaine administered through buccal infiltration (submucosal) only in adult male and female patients with irreversible pulpitis of maxillary 1st molar. Study Design: Two hundred patients with irreversible pulpitis of the maxillary first molar were divided into four study groups and received only buccal infiltration of either 0.8 ml of 4% articaine or 1.6 ml of 2% lidocaine. Endodontic access was begun 7 min after the solution deposition. The success was defined as "no pain (0 mm)" or "weak/mild pain (>0 mm and ≤54 mm)" during access opening, and during the first file insertion till working length. Results: The compiled data of the number of failed cases were analyzed by two sample proportion test and of mean pain scores were analyzed by Student's unpaired t-test. P < 0.05 was taken as statistically significant. No significant difference was found in the number of failed cases on using 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine (P > 0.05). Moreover, no significant difference was found in the number of failed cases between the genders in Group I (4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine) and also in Group II (2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine). On comparing the mean pain scores of failed cases, it has been found that females experience more pain than males in Group I (not significant) and Group II (significant). Conclusion: The efficacy of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine has been found to be better than 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine, as only 0.8 ml of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine was effectively used as compared to 1.6 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine. Furthermore, females experience more pain as compared to males.

The effect of single buccal infiltration anesthesia of 4% articaine with either 1:100,000 or 1:200,000 epinephrine on pulpal blood flow and anesthesia of maxillary first molars and second premolars in humans.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with either 1:100,000 (EP100) or 1:200,000 (EP200) epinephrine on pulpal blood flow (PBF), pulpal anesthesia and soft tissue anesthesia of maxillary first molars and second premolars in human subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen healthy volunteers with intact maxillary first molars and second premolars received an infiltration of 4% articaine with either EP100 or EP200 at buccal aspect of maxillary first molars. The PBF, pulpal anesthesia and soft tissue anesthesia were assessed with a laser Doppler flowmeter (LDF), an electric pulp tester (EPT) and Aesthesiometer II, respectively. RESULTS: Articaine (4%) with either EP100 or EP200 produced PBF reduction in maxillary first molars (injected teeth) by 68.09 and 69.83%, and produced PBF reduction in second premolars (adjacent teeth) by 76.81 and 75.02%, respectively at 15 min post injection. Duration of PBF returned to baseline was 159.00 ± 21.06 (EP100) and 159.00 ± 31.97 (EP200) min in the molars, and 161.00 ± 20.02 (EP100) and 159.00 ± 25.86 (EP200) min in the premolars. The onset of pulpal anesthesia was 2.80 ± 1.26 (EP100) and 3.07 ± 1.28 (EP200) min in the molars, and 2.13 ± 0.52 (EP100) and 2.40 ± 0.83 (EP200) min in the premolars; the duration of pulpal anesthesia was 74.53 ± 24.16 (EP100) and 76.27 ± 34.03 (EP200) min in the molars, and 82.53 ± 31.03 (EP100) and 75.60 ± 37.17 (EP200) min in the premolars. Buccal tissue anesthesia was found in both teeth (100%), but palatal anesthesia was achieved by 13.33% in the premolars and 6.67% in the molars for each solution. CONCLUSIONS: Single buccal infiltration to maxillary first molar produced PBF reduction and successful pulpal anesthesia, evaluated by EPT, in both first molar and second premolar. This anesthetic technique also produced high success of buccal tissue anesthesia, but demonstrated very low success for palatal tissue anesthesia. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Single buccal infiltration to maxillary first molar is potent enough for pulpal and buccal tissue anesthesia, except palatal tissue anesthesia, in both first molar and second premolar.

Comparing the Efficacy of Premedication with Ibuprofen in Combination with an Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block and Primary Buccal Infiltration in Mandibular Molars with Irreversible Pulpitis: A Triple-blinded Randomized Clinical Trial.

Introduction: This study aimed to determine the success rate of the combination of buccal infiltration (BI) and inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) injections in irreversible pulpitis in mandibular molars after premedication with ibuprofen. Materials and Methods: From 132 patients participated in the study, 120 patients were included. One hour before root canal treatment, patients with mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis received either a 600 mg ibuprofen capsule or a placebo. All patients received 2% lidocaine with 1:80000 epinephrine and 4% articaine with 1:100000 epinephrine for IANB and BI, respectively. Patients' pain was evaluated using the Heft-Parker visual analog scale during the preparation of access cavity, exposure of pulp, and instrumentation of root canal. The success of anesthesia was defined as the absence of pain or mild pain. The Chi-square and t-test were employed for data analysis. Results: The difference between patient age and gender in the two groups was not significant (P>0.05). The anesthesia success rate was 85% in the premedicated and 70% in the placebo group, with statistically significant results (P=0.049). Conclusion: Based on this triple-blinded randomized clinical study, mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis were not thoroughly anesthetized by a combination of IANB+BI after premedication with ibuprofen (600 mg), even though anesthesia success was improved significantly by ibuprofen premedication.

Comparative Evaluation of Buccal Infiltration Technique with Buccal Plus Palatal Infiltration Technique Using 4% Articaine in Patients with Irreversible Pulpitis of Maxillary 1st Molars: A Prospective, Randomized, In-Vivo Study.

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the buccal infiltration (BI) technique with the buccal plus palatal infiltration (BPI) technique using 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Methods: A total of 50 adult patients received BI, and the other 50 adult patients received BPI with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. During RCT procedure, when the patient experienced pain, the treatment was stopped and the extent of the procedure was documented. When a patient reported "no pain" (0 mm) or "weak/mild pain" (0 <= 54 mm), the anesthesia was considered successful. Results: Statistical analysis using unpaired t-test showed that the mean pain scores in both groups were comparable. Conclusion: The pain scores in both groups were comparable, but BI is better than BPI as a painful and traumatic palatal injection was avoided.

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.

INTRODUCTION: Pain-free operating is of obvious benefit to the patient, it also helps the operator as treatment can be performed in a calm, unhurried fashion. Articaine hydrochloride has steadily grown in popularity, and studies have shown that articaine hydrochloride performs better than lidocaine due to an enhanced anesthetic efficacy. AIM AND OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of buccal infiltration with articaine in achieving anesthesia for pulp therapy in primary mandibular second molars as compared with inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with lignocaine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients (4-8 years) with an indication of pulp therapy in at least two primary mandibular second molars were selected. Patients were randomly assigned to receive nerve block with lignocaine on the first appointment and buccal infiltration with articaine on the second appointment spaced 1 week apart. A single researcher injected local anesthetic for all the patients. Two researchers standing at a distance of 1.5 m recorded the pain scores and sound, eye, motor (SEM) scores. After the completion of the procedure, the patient was asked to record facial image (FI) score and Heft-Parker visual analog score (HP-VAS). RESULTS: The pain-related behavior scores were higher for IANB when compared with infiltration. Facial image and HP-VAS scores were higher for the lignocaine IANB group when compared with the articaine infiltration. CONCLUSION: With the increasing use of new delivery systems such as single tooth analgesia, a buccal infiltration with articaine provides an effective alternative, with minimal discomfort which would allow clinicians to avoid the use of IANB in children. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Daneswari V, Venugopal Reddy N, Madhavi G, et al. 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. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(3):335-339.

Comparative evaluation of effect of two relaxation breathing exercises on anxiety during buccal infiltration anesthesia in children aged 6-12 years: A randomized clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Dental procedures, especially local anesthetic administration, are a source of great anxiety to children. Diaphragmatic breathing is defined as an efficient integrative body-mind training for dealing with stress and psychosomatic conditions. Pinwheel exercise is also a highly effective technique of "play therapy." AIM: This study aimed to compare dental anxiety using pinwheel breathing exercise and diaphragmatic breathing exercise during buccal infiltration anesthesia. METHODOLOGY: Sixty children in the age group of 6-12 years with Frankel's behavior rating score of 3 who required buccal infiltration local anesthesia were selected. Subjects were divided randomly into two groups, i.e., Group A: children who performed pinwheel breathing exercise and Group B: children who performed diaphragmatic breathing exercise. The level of anxiety of the patients was recorded using an animated emoji scale. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS version 20 software with paired t-test and Chi-square test. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in dental anxiety score from score 1 (before the anesthetic procedure) to score 2 (after the anesthetic procedure) in both the groups. On intergroup analysis, children who performed pinwheel breathing exercise (Group A) showed higher values than children who performed deep breathing exercise without pinwheel (Group B) with a t value of 1.42 but was not statistically significant with a P value of 0.161. CONCLUSION: Pinwheel breathing exercise as well as diaphragmatic breathing exercise proved to be significantly effective in reducing dental anxiety during local anesthesia.

Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block and inferior alveolar nerve block plus buccal or lingual infiltration using articaine in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis: a preliminary prospective randomized single-blind clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed as a prospective randomized single-blind clinical trial to compare the anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB), IANB plus buccal infiltration, and IANB plus lingual infiltration of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Sixty healthy volunteers who had a first or second mandibular molar diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis participated in the present study. This study was composed of three arms for the first molar and three arms for the second molar. Subjects in test arm A received two IANB injections (3.6 mL). Subjects in test arm B received 1.8 mL IANB injection plus 1.8 mL buccal infiltration. Subjects in test arm C received 1.8 mL IANB injection plus 1.8 mL lingual infiltration. Articaine (4%) with 1:100,000 epinephrine was used for all injections. The subject's pain during access preparation and pulp extirpation was recorded on the Heft-Parker visual analog scale. Success was defined as "none" or "mild" pain during treatment. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare pain categories in three groups of interventions for each mandibular molar. RESULTS: IANB with a supplemented buccal infiltration provided more success than IANB alone or IANB plus lingual infiltration, in first molars (P = .019). There were no significant differences between the three injection techniques in second molars (P = .795). CONCLUSIONS: Adding a supplemental buccal infiltration to a standard IANB was more successful in providing pain-free treatment for patients experiencing irreversible pulpitis in mandibular first molars.

An in vivo, randomized, controlled comparative evaluation of efficacy, hemodynamic changes, and postoperative complications of 4% articaine using buccal infiltration and 2% lidocaine using inferior alveolar nerve block in mandibular primary molars of children aged 6 to 8 years.

OBJECTIVE: To compare and evaluate the efficacy, hemodynamic changes, and postoperative complications of 4% articaine using buccal infiltration and 2% lidocaine using inferior alveolar nerve block in mandibular primary molars of children aged 6 to 8 years. METHOD AND MATERIALS: 100 participants were randomly distributed to receive either 4% articaine using infiltration anesthesia or 2% lidocaine using inferior alveolar nerve block on each side of the mandibular arch, in two different appointments, after a 1-week interval. The pain perception was evaluated using visual analog scale (VAS) and Wong-Baker Faces pain rating scale (WBFPRS). In both the appointments, the efficacy and onset of anesthesia were evaluated using an electric pulp tester. Hemodynamic parameters, which included pulse rate and oxygen saturation levels, were evaluated using a pulse oximeter. Postoperative complications were evaluated at 24-hour follow-up. RESULTS: Pain score recorded with block was more painful compared to infiltration (P < .05). Anesthetic success was observed with both the local anesthetic agents, with no significant differences (P > .05). Shorter onset of action was observed with articaine (P < .05). Statistically significant differences between groups were noted with regard to heart rate (P < .05). Oxygen saturation levels did not show significant differences (P > .05). When postoperative complications were evaluated with either 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine, very few adverse effects were recorded (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Buccal infiltration using 4% articaine has the potential to replace 2% lidocaine using inferior alveolar nerve block in children.(Quintessence Int 2021;52:780-786; doi: 10.3290/j.qi.b1492247).

Efficacy of buccal piroxicam infiltration and inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This randomized clinical trial aimed to assess the effectiveness of buccal infiltration with piroxicam on the anesthetic efficacy of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with buccal infiltration in irreversible pulpitis, with pain assessed using the Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (HP-VAS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 56 patients with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular molars, randomly distributed between 2 groups (n = 28). After evaluating the initial pain score with the HP-VAS, each patient received IANB followed by buccal infiltration of 2% lignocaine with adrenaline (1:80,000). Five minutes later, the patients in groups 1 and 2 were given buccal infiltration with 40 mg/2 mL of piroxicam or normal saline, respectively. An access opening procedure (AOP) was performed 15 minutes post-IANB once the individual showed signs of lip numbness as well as 2 negative responses to electric pulp testing. The HP-VAS was used to grade the patient's pain during caries removal (CR), AOP, and working length measurement (WLM). Successful anesthesia was identified either by the absence of pain or slight pain through CR, AOP, and WLM, with no requirement of a further anesthetic dose. A statistical analysis was done using the Shapiro-Wilk and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: The piroxicam group presented a significantly lower (p < 0.05) mean pain score than the saline group during AOP. CONCLUSIONS: Buccal infiltration with piroxicam enhanced the efficacy of anesthesia with IANB and buccal infiltration with lignocaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis.

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.

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.

Patient evaluations after local anesthesia with a computer-assisted method and a conventional syringe before and after reflection time: A prospective randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: This prospective randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate and compare patient response to a conventional syringe and a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system (CCLAD) both immediately and after reflection time, including the impact of anesthesia duration. METHODS: Twenty adult patients (10 men and 10 women) with at least two tooth-neck defects each in different quadrants were treated with local buccal infiltration anesthesia. Using split-mouth design, one quadrant was anesthetized using a conventional syringe, the other with CCLAD. The time elapsed between time of injection and time of disappearance of numbness was recorded. Patients were asked to mark on a Visual Analog Scale their visual impression of the device regarding anxiety-inducement, their sensation of mucosal puncture, pain during administration, and pain perception during treatment for the two different methods as well as future preference immediately after treatment and after reflection time. RESULTS: The level of anxiety-inducement and pain during administration were ranked three times higher with the conventional syringe (35.95%-11.85%, p < 0.001 and 21.3%-7.7%, p = 0.005, respectively). There was no difference in mean sensation of mucosal puncture, nor a statistically significant correlation between duration of administration and time until disappearance of numbness. Once anesthesia was administered, no pain during treatment was detected using either method. Patients' preference of methods changed significantly with time in favor of CCLAD (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The use of CCLAD increased patients' comfort visually and in terms of administration; patients' preference in favor of CCLAD increased with time. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Patients' preference of CCLAD over against the conventional syringe, even more so after reflection time, can imply the preference of CCLAD for clinicians, too, in order to enhance patients' and clinicians' comfort.

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 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.

Buffered 2% articaine versus non-buffered 4% articaine in maxillary infiltration: randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This randomized, triple-blind, crossover clinical trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy, onset, length of pulp and soft tissue anesthesia, and pain during injection of 2% buffered articaine and 4% non-buffered articaine solutions. METHODS: Each volunteer received two maxillary supraperiosteal anesthesia infiltrations in canine area. The infiltrations were performed at two different sessions using a different local anesthetic solution for each session, and the anesthetic injection speed was always 1 mL/min. The assessment of the onset and length of pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia was performed with the pulp electrical test "pulp tester" and the esthesiometer kit, respectively. Volunteers marked pain during injection on a visual analog scale (VAS). The anesthetics solutions pH was evaluated through the pH meter equipment. RESULTS: There was no difference between the two anesthetic solutions (onset of soft tissue anesthesia, p = 0.5386; length of soft tissue anesthesia, p = 0.718; onset of pulpal anesthesia, p = 0.747; length of pulpal anesthesia, p = 0.375), except for pain during the injection which was lower when buffered 2% articaine was used (p = 0.001) and the pH. The pH analysis revealed that the solutions differed from one another (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The 2% buffered articaine solution provided the same anesthetic properties then 4% unbuffered articaine with a great reduction in pain during injection. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The possibility of use 2% buffered articaine solution instead of 4% articaine maintaining the same anesthetic properties with a great reduction in pain during injection and half of the anesthetic salt concentration.

The success of using 2% lidocaine in pain removal during extraction of mandibular premolars: a prospective clinical study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the anesthetic effectiveness of a buccal infiltration technique combined with local massage (using 2% lidocaine) in the extraction of mandibular premolars to be utilized as an alternative to the conventional inferior alveolar nerve block. METHODS: Patients eligible included any subject with a clinical indication for tooth extraction of the mandibular 1st or 2nd premolars. All patients were anesthetized buccally by local infiltration technique followed by an external pressure applied for 1 min directly over the injection area. In each case, another local injection was given lingually. All operations were started at approximately 5 min after the buccal injection. The collected data included age, gender, pain perception and its intensity during treatment at three checkpoints, apical tenderness, and the type of extraction. Any associated complications or difficulties were also recorded. Then the results were analyzed and interpreted using appropriate statistical tests. The significance level was set at P ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 247 cases (1st premolar, n = 119; 2nd premolar, n = 128), predominantly male, were included. In 95% of study sample, the patients were satisfied with the dental extraction without any pain. However, in 5% of cases, pain was reported at the stage of tooth removal. Apical tenderness was found to be present in 11% of the total cases. Three teeth required surgical removal. Upon analysis, no significant differences in the success rates were detected between the 2 premolar groups or amongst the various age groups. Minor and transient side effects were reported in this study. CONCLUSION: The technique is simple and effective as well. It might be considered as an alternative anesthetic injection to the inferior alveolar nerve block for dental extraction of the mandibular premolars.

Efficacy of Infiltration Anaesthesia of 4% Articaine HCl (buccal) Versus 2% Lignocaine HCl (buccolingual) in Extraction of Mandibular Premolars: A Single Centred, Randomised, Crossover Group Study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of buccal and lingual infiltration (B/L I) of 2% lignocaine HCl and buccal infiltration (BI) of 4% articaine for orthodontic extraction of mandibular premolars. MATERIALS AND METHOD: One hundred and four patients (age group 14-26 years) were selected with the indication of bilateral mandibular first or second premolar extraction for orthodontic treatment. Patients were randomly distributed in 2 groups. Group A received B/L I with lignocaine and Group B for BI with articaine in two different appointments in 2-week interval. The pain scores for each patient were evaluated during extraction using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and verbal pain scale (VPS). Statistical analysis was performed by descriptive and inferential statistics using Chi-square test. The agreement between VAS and VPS was obtained by applying intra-class correlation coefficient. RESULTS: No pain was experienced during extraction in 77% (VAS) and 79% (VPS) patients infiltrated in group A and 84% (VAS) and 90% (VPS) patients of group B with articaine. The difference between the groups was statistically significant. A strong positive correlation was found between VAS and VPS scores in the both groups. CONCLUSION: Buccal infiltration with articaine proved to be an effective alternative to buccal and lingual infiltration with lignocaine in the extraction of mandibular premolars.