دوره ۹، شماره ۴ - ( ۹-۱۴۰۳ )
جلد ۹ شماره ۴ صفحات ۲۴۲-۲۳۳ |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
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-fa.html
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-618-fa.html
Comparative Efficacy of Buccal Infiltration Anesthesia with ۴% Articaine versus Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block With ۲% Lidocaine for Extraction of Primary Mandibular Molars: A Randomized Clinical Trial. . ۱۴۰۳; ۹ (۴) :۲۳۳-۲۴۲
چکیده: (۸۲۸ مشاهده)
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.
نوع مطالعه: Original article |
موضوع مقاله:
pediatric
| بازنشر اطلاعات | |
 |
این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است. |
