| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2022 | Volume
: 19
| Issue : 1 | Page : 103 |
|
|
A comparison between articaine mandibular infiltration and lidocaine mandibular block anesthesia in second primary molar: A randomized clinical trial
Elham Ghaffari1, Neda Ahmadi Roozbahani1, Davood Ghasemi1, Homa Baninajarian2
1 Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Isfahan, Iran
2 Dental Research Center, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Neda Ahmadi Roozbahani
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Dental School, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, East Jey Avenue, Arghavaniye St., Isfahan
Iran
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.363533
|
|
|
Background: One of the most important objectives of pediatric dentistry during dental practice is pain control and effective anesthesia. Because of the limitations of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB), other techniques such as infiltration injection are suggested. Infiltration technique by using some other solutions such as articaine is an appropriate alteration for mandibular anesthesia. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of IANB using lidocaine with infiltration injection by articaine in mandibular second primary molar anesthesia in 8–11-year-old children.
Materials and Methods: This is a randomized, cross-over, clinical trial that was performed on 42 children aged 8–11 years, who needed extraction of both mandibular second primary molars. After clinical and radiographic investigations, block or infiltration injection was chosen randomly and treatment was performed in one side in each session. Patient's behavior was registered in two steps of injection and extraction by SEM scores. For comparison of the two sides, Wilcoxon–signed rank test was used (P < 0.05).
Results: We concluded that infiltration technique resulted in decrease of all the three SEM scores in comparison to block injection (P < 0.05). The effectiveness of two techniques during tooth extraction, although grade of lidocaine block was more than infiltrate, was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: It seems that infiltration technique with articaine is a better substitute for block technique in the extraction of mandibular primary molars.
|
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
