OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to demonstrate whether articaine hydrochloride administered alone as a single buccal infiltration in maxillary tooth removal, can provide favourable palatal anesthesia as compared to buccal and palatal injection of lidocaine. STUDY DESIGN: The study population consisted of 30 patients who were undergoing orthodontic treatment, and who required bilateral extraction of maxillary permanent premolars as per their orthodontic treatment plan. On the experimental side, 4 % articaine/HCl was injected into the buccal vestibule of the tooth to be extracted. On the control side, 2 % lignocaine HCl was injected both into the buccal and the palatal side of the tooth to be extracted. Following tooth extraction all patients completed a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and faces pain scale (FPS) to rate the pain on extraction. RESULTS: According to the VAS and FPS scores, the pain on extraction between buccal infiltration of articaine and the routine buccal and palatal infiltration of lignocaine was statistically insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of a palatal injection for the removal of permanent maxillary premolar teeth may not be required when articaine/HCl is used as the local anesthetic.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to demonstrate whether articaine hydrochloride administered alone as a single buccal infiltration in maxillary tooth removal, can provide favourable palatal anesthesia as compared to buccal and palatal injection of lidocaine. STUDY DESIGN: The study population consisted of 30 patients who were undergoing orthodontic treatment, and who required bilateral extraction of maxillary permanent premolars as per their orthodontic treatment plan. On the experimental side, 4 % articaine/HCl was injected into the buccal vestibule of the tooth to be extracted. On the control side, 2 % lignocaine HCl was injected both into the buccal and the palatal side of the tooth to be extracted. Following tooth extraction all patients completed a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and faces pain scale (FPS) to rate the pain on extraction. RESULTS: According to the VAS and FPS scores, the pain on extraction between buccal infiltration of articaine and the routine buccal and palatal infiltration of lignocaine was statistically insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of a palatal injection for the removal of permanent maxillary premolar teeth may not be required when articaine/HCl is used as the local anesthetic.