Volume 9, Issue 4 (12-2024)
J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2024, 9(4): 233-242 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.SBMU.DRC.REC.1400.107
Clinical trials code: IRCT20220129053868N1
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Kamareh S, Soleymani A A, Mozaffari N, Amiri A, Bazghandi B, Khosrozamiri M. Comparative Efficacy of Buccal Infiltration Anesthesia with 4% Articaine versus Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block With 2% Lidocaine for Extraction of Primary Mandibular Molars: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2024; 9 (4) :233-242
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-618-en.html
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-618-en.html
Sanaz Kamareh1 
, Ali Asghar Soleymani1 , Neda Mozaffari1 , Ali Amiri2 , Bornadokht Bazghandi3 , Mahta Khosrozamiri *4
, Ali Asghar Soleymani1 , Neda Mozaffari1 , Ali Amiri2 , Bornadokht Bazghandi3 , Mahta Khosrozamiri *4
1- Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
3- School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4- Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran ,mahtazamiri@gmail.com
2- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
3- School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4- Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran ,
Abstract: (450 Views)
Background and Aim: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of buccal infiltration anesthesia (BIA) with 4% articaine versus inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 2% lidocaine for extraction of primary mandibular molars.
Materials and Methods: This single-blind randomized controlled clinical trial evaluated 100 children between 4-8 years requiring extraction of primary mandibular molars. The children were randomly assigned to two groups (n=50) of IANB with 2% lidocaine and 1:100,000 epinephrine (control), and BIA with 4% articaine and 1:200,000 epinephrine. The Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBFPS) and the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) scale were used to assess the analgesic efficacy of each technique, and the resultant behavioral reaction of children. Data were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney, Chi-square, and independent t-tests (alpha=0.05).
Results: In total, 43 girls and 57 boys with a mean age of 6.59±1.20 years were evaluated. The mean FLACC score was 0.98 in the lidocaine and 1.44 in the articaine group with no significant difference (P=0.246). The mean WBFPS score was significantly higher in the articaine than in the lidocaine group (P=0.039), but the difference between the two groups separately for each tooth type was not significant (P>0.05).
Conclusion: Despite the significantly lower pain score of the IANB with lidocaine group, BIA with 4% articaine was comparable to IANB with 2% lidocaine in behavioral control of children, and may be considered as an acceptable alternative.
Materials and Methods: This single-blind randomized controlled clinical trial evaluated 100 children between 4-8 years requiring extraction of primary mandibular molars. The children were randomly assigned to two groups (n=50) of IANB with 2% lidocaine and 1:100,000 epinephrine (control), and BIA with 4% articaine and 1:200,000 epinephrine. The Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBFPS) and the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) scale were used to assess the analgesic efficacy of each technique, and the resultant behavioral reaction of children. Data were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney, Chi-square, and independent t-tests (alpha=0.05).
Results: In total, 43 girls and 57 boys with a mean age of 6.59±1.20 years were evaluated. The mean FLACC score was 0.98 in the lidocaine and 1.44 in the articaine group with no significant difference (P=0.246). The mean WBFPS score was significantly higher in the articaine than in the lidocaine group (P=0.039), but the difference between the two groups separately for each tooth type was not significant (P>0.05).
Conclusion: Despite the significantly lower pain score of the IANB with lidocaine group, BIA with 4% articaine was comparable to IANB with 2% lidocaine in behavioral control of children, and may be considered as an acceptable alternative.
Type of Study: Original article |
Subject:
pediatric
References
1. Alzahrani F, Duggal MS, Munyombwe T, Tahmassebi JF. Anaesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine for extraction and pulpotomy of mandibular primary molars: an equivalence parallel prospective randomized controlled trial. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2018 May;28(3):335-44. [DOI:10.1111/ipd.12361] [PMID]
2. Arrow P. A comparison of articaine 4% and lignocaine 2% in block and infiltration analgesia in children. Aust Dent J. 2012 Sep;57(3):325-33. [DOI:10.1111/j.1834-7819.2012.01699.x] [PMID]
3. Malamed SF. Handbook of Local Anesthesia-E-Book: Handbook of Local Anesthesia-E-Book, Elsevier health sciences 2019 28 March.
4. Bahrololoomi Z, Rezaei M. 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. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2021 Feb;21(1):61-9. [DOI:10.17245/jdapm.2021.21.1.61] [PMID] []
5. Areethamsirkul A, Nakornchai S, Apipan B. Efficacy of Articaine Infiltration for Pulp Treatment in Mandibular Primary Molars: A Randomized Split-mouth Clinical Trial. J Dent Assoc Thai. 2019;69(3):362-8.
6. McCallum C. Oral surgery for children. Clinical pedodontics 4th ed Philadelphia: Saunders. 1973;389.
7. Kaufman E, Weinstein P, Milgrom P. Difficulties in achieving local anesthesia. J Am Dent Assoc. 1984 Feb;108(2):205-8. [DOI:10.14219/jada.archive.1984.0470] [PMID]
8. Haas DA, Lennon D. A 21 year retrospective study of reports of paresthesia following local anesthetic administration. J Can Dent Assoc. 1995 Apr;61(4):319-20, 323-6, 329-30.
9. Hillerup S, Jensen R. Nerve injury caused by mandibular block analgesia. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006 May;35(5):437-43. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijom.2005.10.004] [PMID]
10. Meechan JG. Supplementary routes to local anaesthesia. Int Endod J. 2002 Nov;35(11):885-96. [DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2591.2002.00592.x] [PMID]
11. Oulis CJ, Vadiakas GP, Vasilopoulou A. The effectiveness of mandibular infiltration compared to mandibular block anesthesia in treating primary molars in children. Pediatr Dent. 1996 Jul-Aug;18(4):301-5.
12. Ram D, Amir E. Comparison of articaine 4% and lidocaine 2% in paediatric dental patients. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2006 Jul;16(4):252-6. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-263X.2006.00745.x] [PMID]
13. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013 Feb 5;158(3):200-7. [DOI:10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583] [PMID] []
14. Yilmaz Y, Eyuboglu O, Keles S. Comparison of the efficacy of articaine and prilocaine local anaesthesia for pulpotomy of maxillary and mandibular primary molars. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2011 Jun;12(2):117-22.
15. Tong HJ, Alzahrani FS, Sim YF, Tahmassebi JF, Duggal M. Anaesthetic efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine in children's dentistry: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2018 Jul;28(4):347-60. [DOI:10.1111/ipd.12363] [PMID]
16. Tirupathi SP, Rajasekhar S. Can single buccal infiltration with 4% articaine induce sufficient analgesia for the extraction of primary molars in children: a systematic literature review. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2020 Aug;20(4):179-86. [DOI:10.17245/jdapm.2020.20.4.179] [PMID] []
17. Ghaffari E, Roozbahani NA, Ghasemi D, Baninajarian H. A comparison between articaine mandibular infiltration and lidocaine mandibular block anesthesia in second primary molar: A randomized clinical trial. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2022 Dec 14;19:103. [DOI:10.4103/1735-3327.363533] [PMID] []
18. Venkat Narayanan J, Gurram P, Krishnan R, Muthusubramanian V, Sadesh Kannan V. Infiltrative local anesthesia with articaine is equally as effective as inferior alveolar nerve block with lidocaine for the removal of erupted molars. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017 Sep;21(3):295-9. [DOI:10.1007/s10006-017-0628-z] [PMID]
19. Tirupathi SP, Rajasekhar S, Ganesh M, Vamshi A, Tyro D. Can 4% Articaine Buccal Infiltration Replace Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block (IANB) with 2% Xylocaine for Pulp Therapy in Primary Mandibular Molars? A Systematic Review. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2021 May-Jun;14(3):420-5. [DOI:10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1974] [PMID] []
20. Jain K, Katge F, Chimata VK, Patil D, Ghadge S, Bhanushali N. 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. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2021 Oct-Dec;39(4):409-15. [DOI:10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_260_21] [PMID]
21. Daneswari V, Venugopal Reddy N, Madhavi G, Pranathi P. 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 May-Jun;14(3):335-9. [DOI:10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1976] [PMID] []
22. Taneja S, Singh A, Jain A. Anesthetic Effectiveness of Articaine and Lidocaine in Pediatric Patients During Dental Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Pediatr Dent. 2020 Jul 15;42(4):273-81.
23. Bahrololoomi Z, Maghsoudi N. Articaine use does not routinely eliminate the need for palatal injections for primary maxillary molar extractions: a randomized cross-over clinical trial. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022 Dec;26(4):603-11. [DOI:10.1007/s10006-021-01021-2] [PMID] []
24. Luo W, Zheng K, Kuang H, Li Z, Wang J, Mei J. The potential of articaine as new generation of local anesthesia in dental clinics: A review. Medicine (Baltimore). 2022 Dec 2;101(48):e32089. [DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000032089] [PMID] []
25. Chen S, Xiang J, Ji Y. Efficacy of Articaine vs Lignocaine for infiltration anaesthesia during primary molar extractions. Pak J Med Sci. 2022 Mar-Apr;38(4Part-II):1048-55. [DOI:10.12669/pjms.38.4.5343]
26. Flanagan DF. The effectiveness of articaine in mandibular facial infiltrations. Local Reg Anesth. 2015 Dec 18;9:1-6. [DOI:10.2147/LRA.S94647] [PMID] []
27. Mittal M, Sharma S, Kumar A, Chopra R, Srivastava D. Comparison of Anesthetic Efficacy of Articaine and Lidocaine During Primary Maxillary Molar Extractions in Children. Pediatr Dent. 2015 Nov-Dec;37(7):520-4.
28. Malamed SF, Gagnon S, Leblanc D. Efficacy of articaine: a new amide local anesthetic. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000 May;131(5):635-42. [DOI:10.14219/jada.archive.2000.0237] [PMID]
29. Oertel R, Rahn R, Kirch W. Clinical pharmacokinetics of articaine. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1997 Dec;33(6):417-25. [DOI:10.2165/00003088-199733060-00002] [PMID]
30. Hersh EV, Giannakopoulos H, Levin LM, Secreto S, Moore PA, Peterson C, et al. The pharmacokinetics and cardiovascular effects of high-dose articaine with 1:100,000 and 1:200,000 epinephrine. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006 Nov;137(11):1562-71. [DOI:10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0092] [PMID]
31. Wong DL, Baker CM. Pain in children: comparison of assessment scales. Pediatr Nurs. 1988 Jan-Feb;14(1):9-17.
32. Yassen GH. Evaluation of mandibular infiltration versus mandibular block anaesthesia in treating primary canines in children. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2010 Jan;20(1):43-9. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-263X.2009.01023.x] [PMID]
33. Zafarmand AAH, Aghaeipour N, Amiri Tehrani N. Effectiveness of mandibular infiltration compared with mandibular block technique in second primary molar pulpotomy. Journal of Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. 2004;22(3):470-7.
34. Crellin D. Procedural pain assessment in infants and young children: identifying a suitable behavioral assessment scale. 2018. (PhD thesis). available from: https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/handle/11343/219257.
35. da Silva FC, Santos Thuler LC, de Leon-Casasola OA. Validity and reliability of two pain assessment tools in Brazilian children and adolescents. J Clin Nurs. 2011 Jul;20(13-14): 1842-8. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03662.x] [PMID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
