K Jorgenson1, L Burbridge2, B Cole2. 1. Child Dental Health, Newcastle Dental Hospital, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AZ, UK. Kathryn.jorgenson@nuth.nhs.uk. 2. Child Dental Health, Newcastle Dental Hospital, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AZ, UK.
Abstract
AIM: To determine whether there is a clinical difference between an inferior dental block (IDB) using 2% lidocaine and a buccal infiltration (BI) using 4% articaine, when anaesthetising mandibular first permanent molars in children. METHODS: Patients aged 8-15 years who required invasive dental treatment on a lower molar tooth were randomised. The patient and dental operator were blind to the type of LA used. The patient used a visual analogue scale to record their experience of pain during injection and treatment. RESULTS: Twenty six teeth were anaesthetised (13 articaine, 13 lidocaine). When using an IDB, all treatment was completed successfully. On one occasion, anaesthesia was deemed unsuccessful when using a BI of articaine. There was no statistical difference in the mean VAS for the perceived pain of injection or treatment. CONCLUSION: This study showed that invasive dental treatment on a mandibular molar tooth can be completed successfully in children using a BI of articaine. In addition, the perceived pain of injection and treatment when using a BI of articaine is comparable to an IDB with lidocaine.
AIM: To determine whether there is a clinical difference between an inferior dental block (IDB) using 2% lidocaine and a buccal infiltration (BI) using 4% articaine, when anaesthetising mandibular first permanent molars in children. METHODS: Patients aged 8-15 years who required invasive dental treatment on a lower molar tooth were randomised. The patient and dental operator were blind to the type of LA used. The patient used a visual analogue scale to record their experience of pain during injection and treatment. RESULTS: Twenty six teeth were anaesthetised (13 articaine, 13 lidocaine). When using an IDB, all treatment was completed successfully. On one occasion, anaesthesia was deemed unsuccessful when using a BI of articaine. There was no statistical difference in the mean VAS for the perceived pain of injection or treatment. CONCLUSION: This study showed that invasive dental treatment on a mandibular molar tooth can be completed successfully in children using a BI of articaine. In addition, the perceived pain of injection and treatment when using a BI of articaine is comparable to an IDB with lidocaine.
Entities:
Keywords:
Articaine; Children; Local anaesthetic; Local anaesthetic comparison; Mandibular molar
Authors: J Kühnisch; M Daubländer; G Klingberg; A Dougall; M Spyridonos Loizides; E Stratigaki; J L Amar; V Anttonen; M Duggal; S Gizani Journal: Eur Arch Paediatr Dent Date: 2017-10-11