Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine

The Korean Dental Society of Anesthsiology (대한치과마취과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Can single buccal infiltration with 4% articaine induce sufficient analgesia for the extraction of primary molars in children: a systematic literature review

  • Received : 2020.05.31
  • Accepted : 2020.07.19
  • Published : 2020.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This systematic review aims to determine if a single buccal infiltration (without palatal infiltration in the maxilla and Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in the mandible) with 4% articaine can induce adequate analgesia for the extraction of primary molars (Maxillary and Mandibular) in children. PubMed, Ovid SP, and Embase were searched for studies published between January 1990 and March 2020 with the relevant MeSH terms. Titles and abstracts were screened preliminarily, followed by the full-texts of the included studies. Five articles were included for this systematic review. The outcome investigated was "Procedural pain during the extraction of primary molars after injection with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine in comparison to single buccal infiltration, double infiltration (buccal and palatal/lingual), and inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% lignocaine." Of the five studies that evaluated subjective pain during extraction, two reported no significant difference between the articaine and lignocaine groups, and the remaining three reported lower subjective pain during extraction in the articaine group. Only two studies evaluated objective pain scores during extraction, and both studies reported lower pain scores in the articaine group. There is insufficient evidence to justify the statement that a single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine alone is sufficient for the extraction of primary molars. Further evidence is required to justify the claim that palatal infiltrations and IANB can be replaced with the use of 4% articaine single buccal infiltration for the extraction of primary molars in children.

Keywords

References

  1. Abu Sharkh M, Khalil A, Ong-Ly C, Wilson TD, Galil K. Buccal injection of articaine to anesthetize the palatal mucosa. Gen Dent 2019; 67: 26-30.
  2. Bataineh AB, Al-Sabri GA. Extraction of maxillary teeth using articaine without a palatal injection: a comparison between the anterior and posterior regions of the maxilla. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 75: 87-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2016.06.192
  3. Lima JL Jr., Dias-Ribeiro E, Ferreira-Rocha J, Soares R, Costa FWG, Fan S, et al. Comparison of buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with 1 : 100,000 and 1 : 200,000 epinephrine for extraction of maxillary third molars with pericoronitis: a pilot study. Anesth Prog 2013; 60: 42-5. https://doi.org/10.2344/0003-3006-60.2.42
  4. Lima-Junior JL, Dias-Ribeiro E, de Araujo TN, Ferreira-Rocha J, Honfi-Junior ES, Sarmento CF, et al. Evaluation of the buccal vestibule-palatal diffusion of 4% articaine hydrochloride in impacted maxillary third molar extractions. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2009; 14: E129-32.
  5. Luqman U, Majeed Janjua OS, Ashfaq M, Irfan H, Mushtaq S, Bilal A. Comparison of articaine and lignocaine for uncomplicated maxillary exodontia. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2015; 25: 181-4.
  6. Majid OW, Ahmed AM. The anesthetic efficacy of articaine and lidocaine in equivalent doses as buccal and non-palatal infiltration for maxillary molar extraction: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018; 76: 737-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2017.11.028
  7. Peng M, Zhu ZM, Yang XM. feasibility of permanent maxillary tooth removal using articaine anesthesia without palatal injection. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2008; 26: 416-8.
  8. Sandilya V, Andrade NN, Mathai PC, Aggarwal N, Sahu V, Nerurkar S. A randomized control trial comparing buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with buccal and palatal infiltration of 2% lignocaine for the extraction of maxillary premolar teeth. Contemp Clin Dent 2019; 10: 284-8.
  9. Uckan S, Dayangac E, Araz K. Is permanent maxillary tooth removal without palatal injection possible? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006; 102: 733-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.12.005
  10. Bataineh AB, Alwarafi MA. Patient's pain perception during mandibular molar extraction with articaine: a comparison study between infiltration and inferior alveolar nerve block. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20: 2241-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1712-8
  11. 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; 21: 295-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-017-0628-z
  12. 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; 28: 335-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12361
  13. Arrow P. A comparison of articaine 4% and lignocaine 2% in block and infiltration analgesia in children. Aust Dent J 2012; 57: 325-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2012.01699.x
  14. Bataineh AB, Nusair YM, Al-Rahahleh RQ. Comparative study of articaine and lidocaine without palatal injection for maxillary teeth extraction. Clin Oral Investig 2019; 23: 3239-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2738-x
  15. Jorgenson K, Burbridge L, Cole B. Comparison of the efficacy of a standard inferior alveolar nerve block versus articaine infiltration for invasive dental treatment in permanent mandibular molars in children: a pilot study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2020; 21: 171-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-019-00496-8
  16. Kolli NK, Nirmala SV, Nuvvula S. The effectiveness of articaine and lidocaine single buccal infiltration versus conventional buccal and palatal injection using lidocaine during primary maxillary molar extraction: a randomized control trial. Anesth Essays Res 2017; 11: 160-4. https://doi.org/10.4103/0259-1162.186589
  17. Kumar DP, Sharma M, Patil V, Subedar RS, Lakshmi GV, Manjunath NV. Anesthetic efficacy of single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine and 2% lignocaine in extraction of maxillary 1st molar. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2019; 9: 239-46. https://doi.org/10.4103/ams.ams_201_18
  18. Maruthingal S, Mohan D, Maroli RK, Alahmari A, Alqahtani A, Alsadoon M. a comparative evaluation of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine in mandibular buccal infiltration anesthesia: A clinical study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2015; 5: 463-9. https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0762.167717
  19. Massignan C, Silveira Santos P, Cardoso M, Bolan M. Efficacy and adverse events of 4% articaine compared with 2% lidocaine on primary molar extraction: a randomised controlled trial. J Oral Rehabil 2020; 47: 1031-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12989
  20. 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; 37: 520-4.
  21. Rathi NV, Khatri AA, Agrawal AG, M SB, Thosar NR, Deolia SG. Anesthetic efficacy of buccal infiltration articaine versus lidocaine for extraction of primary molar teeth. Anesth Prog 2019; 66: 3-7. https://doi.org/10.2344/anpr-65-04-02
  22. Zain M, Rehman Khattak SU, Sikandar H, Shah SA, Fayyaz. Comparison of anaesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine primary buccal infiltration versus 2% lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block in symptomatic mandibular first molar teeth. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2016; 26: 4-8.

Cited by

  1. 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 random vol.21, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2021.21.1.61
  2. Comparison of two behavior management techniques used during mandibular block anesthesia among preschool children: a randomized clinical trial vol.22, pp.5, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-021-00617-2