Anshul Sharma1, B S Suprabha2, Ramya Shenoy3, Arathi Rao4. 1. Former Postgraduate Student, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal University Mangalore, Karnataka, India. 2. Additional Professor, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, 'Shreyas' 15/17/940-13, 5th Cross Road, Shivabagh, Kadri, Mangalore 575002, Karnataka, India, Phone: 091-0824-2428716, Fax: 091-0824-2422653, e-mail:suprabha.bhat@manipal.edu. 3. Associate Professor, Department of Public Health Dentistry, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal University, Mangalore, Karnataka India. 4. Professor and Head, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal University Mangalore, Karnataka, India.
Abstract
AIM: To compare the efficacy of 15% lignocaine spray and 8% lignocaine gel as a topical anesthetic, in reducing pain, during buccal infiltration in children. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Forty-two patients aged between 7 and 12 years requiring restorative procedures/extraction/pulp therapy of primary/ permanent teeth in the maxillary arch, under buccal infiltration anesthesia were selected for the study. The participants were randomly allocated into 2 groups of 21 each. In group A, 8% lignocaine gel and in group B, 15% lignocaine spray was applied prior to buccal infiltration. Pain was assessed using Wong-Baker faces pain rating scale (WBFPRS) and faces legs activity cry and consolability (FLACC) painscale. RESULTS: Pearson's chi-square test revealed that there was no significant difference in the FLACC scores of the two groups (p = 0.54). Independent t-test demonstrated that there was no significant difference in Wong-Bakers faces pain score between the two agents (p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in the efficacy of 15% lignocaine spray and 8% lignocaine gel as a topical anesthetic in controlling pain during buccal infiltration anesthesia, in children.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To compare the efficacy of 15% lignocaine spray and 8% lignocaine gel as a topical anesthetic, in reducing pain, during buccal infiltration in children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients aged between 7 and 12 years requiring restorative procedures/extraction/pulp therapy of primary/ permanent teeth in the maxillary arch, under buccal infiltration anesthesia were selected for the study. The participants were randomly allocated into 2 groups of 21 each. In group A, 8% lignocaine gel and in group B, 15% lignocaine spray was applied prior to buccal infiltration. Pain was assessed using Wong-Baker faces pain rating scale (WBFPRS) and faces legs activity cry and consolability (FLACC) painscale. RESULTS: Pearson's chi-square test revealed that there was no significant difference in the FLACC scores of the two groups (p = 0.54). Independent t-test demonstrated that there was no significant difference in Wong-Bakers faces pain score between the two agents (p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in the efficacy of 15% lignocaine spray and 8% lignocaine gel as a topical anesthetic in controlling pain during buccal infiltration anesthesia, in children.
Entities:
Keywords:
Lignocaine; Randomized trial. How to cite this article: Sharma A; Rao A. Efficacy of Lignocaine in Gel and Spray form during Buccal Infltration Anesthesia in Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014;15(6):750-754. Source of support: Nil Conflict of interest: None.; Shenoy R; Suprabha BS; Topical anesthesia
Authors: Nivedita Jain; Preene Juneja; Updesh Masih; A K Bharath Bhushan; Upendra Singh Bhaduaria; Khushboo Badjatya Journal: J Family Med Prim Care Date: 2021-11-29