Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine

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

DOI QR Code

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

  • Bahrololoomi, Zahra (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Rezaei, Maedeh (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences)
  • Received : 2020.11.17
  • Accepted : 2021.01.05
  • Published : 2021.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) using lidocaine 2% is commonly used for anesthetizing primary mandibular molars; however, this technique has the highest level of patient discomfort compared to other local anesthesia techniques. Therefore, alternative anesthesia techniques are necessary. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine with IANB using 2% lidocaine, for the bilateral extraction of primary mandibular molars. Methods: The present study was conducted on 30 patients aged between 6 and 9 years, who required the extraction of bilateral primary mandibular molars. The patients were randomly divided into two groups as follows: In the first session, Group A received IANB with lidocaine 2% and group B received infiltration with articaine 4%. In the second session, another injection method was performed on the opposite side. The Wong-Baker Facial Pain scale (WBFPS), Face Leg Activity Cry, and Consolability (FLACC), and physiologic parameters were used to assess pain perception. Results: The independent t-test showed no statistically significant difference in blood pressure and heart rate before and after extraction (P > 0.05). The mean FLACC index in the lidocaine and articaine groups was 0.89 and 1.36, respectively; there was no statistically significant difference between them (P > 0.05). According to the results of the chi-square test, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups for WBFPS (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The articaine infiltration technique may be an alternative to the IANB for the extraction of primary mandibular molars.

Keywords

References

  1. Odabas ME, Cinar C, Deveci C, Alacam A. Comparison of the anesthetic efficacy of articaine and mepivacaine in pediatric patients: a randomized, double-blind study. Pediatr Dent 2012; 34: 42-5.
  2. Kuscu OO, Akyuz S. Is it the injection device or the anxiety experienced that causes pain during dental local anaesthesia? Int J Paediatr Dent 2008; 18: 139-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2007.00875.x
  3. Smolarek PC, Wambier LM, Siqueira Silva L, Chibinski ACR. Does computerized anaesthesia reduce pain during local anaesthesia in paediatric patients for dental treatment? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Paediatr Dent 2020; 30: 118-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12580
  4. Davoudi A, Rismanchian M, Akhavan A, Nosouhian S, Bajoghli F, Haghighat A, et al. A brief review on the efficacy of different possible and nonpharmacological techniques in eliminating discomfort of local anesthesia injection during dental procedures. Anesth Essays Res 2016; 10: 13-6. https://doi.org/10.4103/0259-1162.167846
  5. Meechan JG, Day PF, McMillan AS. Local anesthesia in the palate: a comparison of techniques and solutions. Anesth Prog 2000; 47: 139-42.
  6. Malamed SF, Gagnon S, Leblanc D. A comparison between articaine HCl and lidocaine HCl in pediatric dental patients. Pediatr Dent 2000; 22: 307-11.
  7. Kaufman E, Epstein JB, Naveh E, Gorsky M, Gross A, Cohen G. A survey of pain, pressure, and discomfort induced by commonly used oral local anesthesia injections. Anesth Prog 2005; 52: 122-7. https://doi.org/10.2344/0003-3006(2005)52[122:ASP]2.0.CO;2
  8. Ram D, Amir E. Comparison of articaine 4% and lidocaine 2% in paediatric dental patients. Int J Paediatr Dent 2006; 16: 252-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2006.00745.x
  9. 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
  10. Oertel R, Rahn R, Kirch W. Clinical pharmacokinetics of articaine. Clin Pharmacokinet 1997; 33: 417-25. https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-199733060-00002
  11. Brandt RG, Anderson PF, McDonald NJ, Sohn W, Peters MC. The pulpal anesthetic efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine in dentistry: a meta-analysis. J Am Dent Assoc 2011; 142: 493-504. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2011.0219
  12. 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; 28: 347-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12363
  13. 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; 20: 179-186. https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2020.20.4.179
  14. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gotzsche PC, Krleza-Jeric K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158: 200-7. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583
  15. 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; 18: 301-5.
  16. Bosenberg A, Thomas J, Lopez T, Kokinsky E, Larsson LE. Validation of a six-graded faces scale for evaluation of postoperative pain in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2003; 13: 708-13. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-9592.2003.01142.x
  17. Voepel-Lewis T, Merkel S, Tait AR, Trzcinka A, Malviya S. The reliability and validity of the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability observational tool as a measure of pain in children with cognitive impairment. Anesth Analg 2002; 95: 1224-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000539-200211000-00020
  18. Chopra R, Marwaha M, Bansal K, Mittal M. Evaluation of buccal infiltration with articaine and inferior alveolar nerve block with lignocaine for pulp therapy in mandibular primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016; 40: 301-5. https://doi.org/10.17796/1053-4628-40.4.301
  19. Cohen LL, Lemanek K, Blount RL, Dahlquist LM, Lim CS, Palermo TM, et al. Evidence-based assessment of pediatric pain. J Pediatr Psychol 2008; 33: 939-55. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsm103
  20. McGrath PJ, Walco GA, Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Brown MT, Davidson K, et al. Core outcome domains and measures for pediatric acute and chronic/recurrent pain clinical trials: PedIMMPACT recommendations. J Pain 2008; 9: 771-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2008.04.007
  21. Tomlinson D, Von Baeyer CL, Stinson JN, Sung L. A systematic review of faces scales for the self-report of pain intensity in children. Pediatrics 2010; 126: e1168-e98. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-1609
  22. Crellin D. Procedural pain assessment in infants and young children: identifying a suitable behavioural assessment scale. 2018 (PhD thesis). available from https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/handle/11343/219257
  23. 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; 20: 1842-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03662.x
  24. Allen KD, Kotil D, Larzelere RE, Hutfless S, Beiraghi S. Comparison of a computerized anesthesia device with a traditional syringe in preschool children. Pediatr Dent 2002; 24: 315-20.
  25. 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.
  26. 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
  27. Alinejhad D, Bahrololoomi Z, Navabazam A, Asayesh MA. Comparison of visual analog scale scores in pain assessment during pulpotomy using different injection materials in children aged 6 to 8 and 8 to 10 years. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19: 313-7. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2259
  28. 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
  29. Kanaa MD, Whitworth JM, Corbett IP, Meechan JG. Articaine and lidocaine mandibular buccal infiltration anesthesia: a prospective randomized double-blind cross-over study. J Endod 2006; 32: 296-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2005.09.016
  30. Hayward J, Richardson ER, Malhotra SK. The mandibular foramen: its anteroposterior position. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1977; 44: 837-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(77)90027-5