A comparison between articaine mandibular infiltration and lidocaine mandibular block anesthesia in second primary molar: A randomized clinical trial
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...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2022-01-01
|
| Series: | Dental Research Journal |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.drjjournal.net/article.asp?issn=1735-3327;year=2022;volume=19;issue=1;spage=103;epage=103;aulast=Ghaffari |
| _version_ | 1828066202268729344 |
|---|---|
| author | Elham Ghaffari Neda Ahmadi Roozbahani Davood Ghasemi Homa Baninajarian |
| author_facet | Elham Ghaffari Neda Ahmadi Roozbahani Davood Ghasemi Homa Baninajarian |
| author_sort | Elham Ghaffari |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-10T23:27:18Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-584898d824114ab089746e66a5656f69 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1735-3327 2008-0255 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-10T23:27:18Z |
| publishDate | 2022-01-01 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Dental Research Journal |
| spelling | doaj.art-584898d824114ab089746e66a5656f692023-01-12T11:22:34ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsDental Research Journal1735-33272008-02552022-01-0119110310310.4103/1735-3327.363533A comparison between articaine mandibular infiltration and lidocaine mandibular block anesthesia in second primary molar: A randomized clinical trialElham GhaffariNeda Ahmadi RoozbahaniDavood GhasemiHoma BaninajarianBackground: 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.http://www.drjjournal.net/article.asp?issn=1735-3327;year=2022;volume=19;issue=1;spage=103;epage=103;aulast=Ghaffariarticainelidocainelocal anesthesia |
| spellingShingle | Elham Ghaffari Neda Ahmadi Roozbahani Davood Ghasemi Homa Baninajarian A comparison between articaine mandibular infiltration and lidocaine mandibular block anesthesia in second primary molar: A randomized clinical trial Dental Research Journal articaine lidocaine local anesthesia |
| title | A comparison between articaine mandibular infiltration and lidocaine mandibular block anesthesia in second primary molar: A randomized clinical trial |
| title_full | A comparison between articaine mandibular infiltration and lidocaine mandibular block anesthesia in second primary molar: A randomized clinical trial |
| title_fullStr | A comparison between articaine mandibular infiltration and lidocaine mandibular block anesthesia in second primary molar: A randomized clinical trial |
| title_full_unstemmed | A comparison between articaine mandibular infiltration and lidocaine mandibular block anesthesia in second primary molar: A randomized clinical trial |
| title_short | A comparison between articaine mandibular infiltration and lidocaine mandibular block anesthesia in second primary molar: A randomized clinical trial |
| title_sort | comparison between articaine mandibular infiltration and lidocaine mandibular block anesthesia in second primary molar a randomized clinical trial |
| topic | articaine lidocaine local anesthesia |
| url | http://www.drjjournal.net/article.asp?issn=1735-3327;year=2022;volume=19;issue=1;spage=103;epage=103;aulast=Ghaffari |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT elhamghaffari acomparisonbetweenarticainemandibularinfiltrationandlidocainemandibularblockanesthesiainsecondprimarymolararandomizedclinicaltrial AT nedaahmadiroozbahani acomparisonbetweenarticainemandibularinfiltrationandlidocainemandibularblockanesthesiainsecondprimarymolararandomizedclinicaltrial AT davoodghasemi acomparisonbetweenarticainemandibularinfiltrationandlidocainemandibularblockanesthesiainsecondprimarymolararandomizedclinicaltrial AT homabaninajarian acomparisonbetweenarticainemandibularinfiltrationandlidocainemandibularblockanesthesiainsecondprimarymolararandomizedclinicaltrial AT elhamghaffari comparisonbetweenarticainemandibularinfiltrationandlidocainemandibularblockanesthesiainsecondprimarymolararandomizedclinicaltrial AT nedaahmadiroozbahani comparisonbetweenarticainemandibularinfiltrationandlidocainemandibularblockanesthesiainsecondprimarymolararandomizedclinicaltrial AT davoodghasemi comparisonbetweenarticainemandibularinfiltrationandlidocainemandibularblockanesthesiainsecondprimarymolararandomizedclinicaltrial AT homabaninajarian comparisonbetweenarticainemandibularinfiltrationandlidocainemandibularblockanesthesiainsecondprimarymolararandomizedclinicaltrial |