International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2024 ) > List of Articles


A Comparative Evaluation of Pain Experience and Time of Onset of 2% Lignocaine and 4% Articaine in Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block among Pediatric Population: A Clinical Study

Shivani S Singh, Monika Koul

Keywords : Articaine, Face, legs, activity, cry, and consolability scale, Lignocaine, Pain perception, Time of onset, Visual analog scale

Citation Information : Singh SS, Koul M. A Comparative Evaluation of Pain Experience and Time of Onset of 2% Lignocaine and 4% Articaine in Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block among Pediatric Population: A Clinical Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17 (1):67-71.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2748

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 14-03-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Aim: The objective of this research was to conduct a comparison and evaluate the pain perception and time of onset of 2% lignocaine 1:80,000 epinephrine with 4% articaine 1:100,000 epinephrine in the pediatric population. Materials and methods: A split-mouth randomized control trial was conducted on 50 children aged 9–14 years who required inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) anesthesia for bilateral dental treatment in the mandibular arch. The time of onset was recorded when no sensation was reported even when maximum electrical stimulus was applied in an electric pulp testing (EPT). The pain perception was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) rated by the patient for subjective symptoms and face, legs, activity, cry, and consolability (FLACC) scale for objective pain rated by the operator. Results: The mean onset of time, pain—VAS, and FLACC score decreased by 1.31, 12.07, and 18.39%, respectively in 4% articaine as compared to 2% lignocaine but the difference did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05), that is, found to be statistically the same. In conclusion, it can be inferred that the utilization of 4% articaine is as potent as 2% lignocaine solution but showed slightly better onset of anesthesia and pain experience among the children although the findings were not statistically significant. Clinical significance: Local anesthesia (LA) is one of the main methods of pain management in pediatric practice which makes it essential to choose an LA agent with a shorter time of onset and less pain on administration.

PDF Share
  1. Kambalimath DH, Dolas RS, Kambalimath HV, et al. Efficacy of 4% Articaine and 2% Lidocaine: a clinical study. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2013;12(1):3–10. DOI: 10.1007/s12663-012-0368-4
  2. Malamed SF, Gagnon S, Leblanc D. A comparison between articaine HCl and lidocaine HCl in pediatric dental patients. Pediatr Dent 2000;22(4):307–311.
  3. Arrow P. A comparison of articaine 4% and lignocaine 2% in block and infiltration analgesia in children. Aust Dent J 2012;57(3):325–333. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2012.01699.x
  4. Costa CG, Tortamano IP, Rocha RG, et al. Onset and duration periods of articaine and lidocaine on maxillary infiltration. Quintessence Int 2005;36(3):197–201.
  5. Srouji R, Ratnapalan S, Schneeweiss S. Pain in children: assessment and non-pharmacological management. Int J Pediatr 2010;2010:474838. DOI: 10.1155/2010/474838
  6. Donaldson D, James-Perdok L, Craig BJ, et al. A comparison of Ultracaine DS (articaine HCl) and Citanest forte (prilocaine HCl) in maxillary infiltration and mandibular nerve block. J Can Dent Assoc 1987;53(1):38–42.
  7. Lin J, Chandler NP. Electric pulp testing: a review Int Endod J 2008;41(5):365–374. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01375.x
  8. Dreven L, Reader A, Beck M, et al. An evaluation of the electric pulp tester as a measure of analgesia in human vital teeth. J Endod 1987;13(5):233– 238. DOI: 10.1016/s0099-2399(87)80097-3
  9. Certosimo AJ, Archer RD. A clinical evaluation of the electric pulp tester as an indicator of local anesthesia. Oper Dent 1996;21(1):25–30.
  10. Mikesell P, Nusstein J, Reader A, et al. A comparison of articaine and lidocaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks. J Endod 2005;31(4):265–270. DOI: 10.1097/01.don.0000140576.36513.cb
  11. Claffey E, Reader A, Nusstein J, et al. Anesthetic efficacy of articaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients with irreversible pulpitis. J Endod 2004; 30(8):568–571. DOI: 10.1097/01.don.0000125317.21892.8f
  12. OV MM, HT RH, Bhat SS, et al. Comparison of the local anaesthetic effect of 4% Articaine and 2% Lidocaine administered using inferior alveolar nerve block technique in primary mandibular molar extractions. J Evolution Med Dent Sci 2021;10(1):13–19. DOI: 10.14260/jemds/2021/3
  13. Tortamano IP, Siviero M, Lee S, et al. Onset and duration period of pulpal anesthesia of articaine and lidocaine in inferior alveolar nerve block. Braz Dent J 2013;24(4):371–374. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201302072
  14. 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 Paediatr Dent 2018;28(3):335–344. DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12361
  15. Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, et al. Measures of adult pain: Visual analog scale for pain (VAS pain), numeric rating scale for pain (NRS pain), McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ), short-form McGill pain questionnaire (SF-mpq), chronic pain grade scale (CPGS), short form- 6 bodily pain scale (SF-36 bps), and measure of intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011;63(Suppl 11):S240–S252. DOI: 10.1002/acr.20543
  16. Khatri A, Afsal MM, Kalra N, et al. Hemodynamic changes in pediatric dental patients using 2% lignocaine, buffered lignocaine, and 4% articaine in pediatric dental procedures. J Oral Res Rev 2021;13(2):81. DOI: 10.4103/jorr.jorr_19_20
  17. Poorni S, Veniashok B, Senthilkumar AD, et al. Anesthetic efficacy of four percent articaine for pulpal anesthesia by using inferior alveolar nerve block and buccal infiltration techniques in patients with irreversible pulpitis: a prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial. J Endod 2011; 37(12):1603–1607. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.09.009
  18. 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.
  19. Oulis CJ, Vadiakas GP, Vasilopoulou A. The effectiveness of mandibular infiltration compared to mandibular block anaesthesia in treating primary molars in children. Pediatr Dent 1996;18(4):301–305.
  20. MM A, Khatri A, Kalra N, et al. Pain perception and efficacy of local analgesia using 2% lignocaine, buffered lignocaine, and 4% articaine in pediatric dental procedures. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 2019;19(2):101–109. DOI: 10.17245/jdapm.2019.19.2.101
  21. Kanaa MD, Whitworth JM, Corbett IP, et al. Articaine and lidocaine mandibular buccal infiltration anesthesia: a prospective randomized double-blind cross-over study. J Endod 2006;32(4):296–298. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2005.09.016
  22. Jaskowski SK. The FLACC: a behavioral scale for scoring postoperative pain in young children. AACN Nurs Scan Crit Care 1998;8(1):16.
  23. 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(1):160–164. DOI: 10.4103/0259-1162.186589
  24. 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;21(1):61–69.
  25. Bansal SK, Kaura S, Sangha PK, et al. Comparison of anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lignocaine. Indian Journal of Dental Sciences 2018;10(2):92.
  26. Jayalakshmi PS, Soumithran CS, Kinra PK, et al. Comparative evaluation of local anesthetic action of articaine witth lignocaine. Journal of Current Research. 2017;9(10): 60611–60613.
  27. Ghosh A, Basu S, Maity C, et al. Efficacy of 4% articaine with 1: 100,000 adrenaline as an effective alternative for achieving anesthesia during dental extraction. Indian Journal of Dental Sciences 2019;11(4):189.
  28. Boonsiriseth K, Chaimanakarn S, Chewpreecha P, et al. 4% lidocaine versus 4% articaine for inferior alveolar nerve block in impacted lower third molar surgery. Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine 2017;17(1):29–35.
  29. Becker DE, Reed KL. Local anesthetics: review of pharmacological considerations. Anesth Prog 2012;59(2):90-101. DOI: 10.2344/0003-3006-59.2.90
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.