International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 3 ( May-June, 2021 ) > List of Articles


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

Daneswari Velagala, G Madhavi, P Pranathi

Keywords : Articaine, Buccal infiltration, Inferior alveolar nerve block, Lignocaine, Primary second molars

Citation Information : Velagala D, 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; 14 (3):335-339.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1976

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 29-09-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Introduction: Pain-free operating is of obvious benefit to the patient, it also helps the operator as treatment can be performed in a calm, unhurried fashion. Articaine hydrochloride has steadily grown in popularity, and studies have shown that articaine hydrochloride performs better than lidocaine due to an enhanced anesthetic efficacy. Aim and objective: To assess the efficacy of buccal infiltration with articaine in achieving anesthesia for pulp therapy in primary mandibular second molars as compared with inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with lignocaine. Materials and methods: Thirty patients (4–8 years) with an indication of pulp therapy in at least two primary mandibular second molars were selected. Patients were randomly assigned to receive nerve block with lignocaine on the first appointment and buccal infiltration with articaine on the second appointment spaced 1 week apart. A single researcher injected local anesthetic for all the patients. Two researchers standing at a distance of 1.5 m recorded the pain scores and sound, eye, motor (SEM) scores. After the completion of the procedure, the patient was asked to record facial image (FI) score and Heft-Parker visual analog score (HP-VAS). Results: The pain-related behavior scores were higher for IANB when compared with infiltration. Facial image and HP-VAS scores were higher for the lignocaine IANB group when compared with the articaine infiltration. Conclusion: With the increasing use of new delivery systems such as single tooth analgesia, a buccal infiltration with articaine provides an effective alternative, with minimal discomfort which would allow clinicians to avoid the use of IANB in children.

  1. Meechan JG. How to overcome failed local anaesthesia. Br Dent J 1999;186(1):15–20. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4800006.
  2. Saxena P, Gupta SK, Newaskar V, et al. Advances in dental local anaesthesia techniques and devices: an update. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2013;4(1):19–24. DOI: 10.4103/0975-5950.117873.
  3. Guideline on use of local anesthesia for pediatric dental patients. AAPD 2015.
  4. 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;12(2):117–122.
  5. Baroni DB, Franz-Montan M, Cogo K, et al. Effect of articaine on mental nerve anterior portion: histological analysis in rats. Acta Odontol Scand 2013;71(1):82–87. DOI: 10.3109/00016357.2011.654243.
  6. Chopra R, Marwaha M, Bansal K, et al. 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(4):301–305. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-40.4.301.
  7. Wright GZ, Weinberger SJ, Marti R, et al. The effectiveness of infiltration anaesthesia in the mandibular primary molar region. Pediatr Dent 1991;13(5):278–283.
  8. Alzahrani F, Duggal MS, Munyombwe T, et al. 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 Pediatr Dent 2018;28(3):335–344. DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12361.
  9. Ali SG, Mulay S. Articaine vs lidocaine: a review. IOSR-JDMS 2014;13(9):40–44. DOI: 10.9790/0853-13954044.
  10. Ram D, Peretz B. Reactions of children to maxillary infiltration and mandibular block injections. Pediatr Dent 2001;23(4):343–346.
  11. Adewumi A, Hall M, Guelmann M, et al. The incidence of adverse reactions following 4% septocaine (articaine) in children. Pediatr Dent 2008;30(5):424–428.
  12. Corbett IP, Kanaa MD, Whitworth JM, et al. Articaine infiltration for anesthesia of mandibular first molars. J Endod 2008;34(5):514–518. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.02.042.
  13. Yapp KE, Hopcraft MS, Parashos P. Articaine: a review of the literature. Br Dent J 2001;210(7):323–329. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2011.240.
  14. Allen KD, Kotil D, Larzelere RE, et al. Comparison of a computerized anaesthesia device with a traditional syringe in preschool children. Pediatr Dent 2001;24(4):315–320.
  15. Jung IY, Kim JH, Kim ES, et al. An evaluation of buccal infiltrations and inferior alveolar nerve blocks in pulpal anesthesia for mandibular first molars. J Endod 2008;34(1):11–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.09.006.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.