Leila Erfanparast1, Mahdi Rahbar2, Maryam Pourkazemi1, Masoumeh Vatandoust1, Sabra Balar3, Ali Vafaei1. 1. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran. 2. Department of Restorative and Esthetic Dentistry, Dental School, Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran. 3. Private Practitioner, Dentist, Tabriz, Iran.
Abstract
Background: One of the most impressive factors discouraging many people from seeking dental treatment is the fear of experiencing pain during dental procedures. Thus, the use of an effective method for pain control is vital in this regard. Articaine, which has an additional ester and thiophene groups that increase its biosolubility and permeability compared to older anesthetic agents, can be more effective on inducing anesthesia during dental treatment. Given the inconsistent currently available information on this concept, the present study was designed to compare the efficacy of articaine with that of lidocaine on pain control during pulp treatment of deciduous molar. Methods and materials: In this cross-sectional study, 38 patients who needed pulpotomy in both mandibular second molar of primary teeth were randomly divided into two groups, using the Randlist software. In the first meeting, infiltration with articaine 4% (epinephrine 1/100 000) was performed for all patients in group 1 on the left side of the mandible. At the next appointment, inferior alveolar nerve block was done with lidocaine 2% on the right side of the mandible (epinephrine 1/80 000). Notably, for all patients in the second group, the first injection was performed on the right second primary molar with articaine 4% (epinephrine 1/100 000), and inferior alveolar nerve block was also done with lidocaine 2% on the left side of the mandible (epinephrine 1/80 000). Results: Of the 38 patients included in the current study, 10 (26.3%) subjects in the lidocaine group and nine (23.6%) in the articaine group complained of pain during their dental treatment procedures, but this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion: According to the findings of this study, buccal infiltration of 4% articaine had a comparable anesthetic outcome to that of 2% lidocaine for inferior alveolar nerve block in pulp treatment of the second primary mandibular molars.
Background: One of the most impressive factors discouraging many people from seeking dental treatment is the fear of experiencing pain during dental procedures. Thus, the use of an effective method for pain control is vital in this regard. Articaine, which has an additional ester and thiophene groups that increase its biosolubility and permeability compared to older anesthetic agents, can be more effective on inducing anesthesia during dental treatment. Given the inconsistent currently available information on this concept, the present study was designed to compare the efficacy of articaine with that of lidocaine on pain control during pulp treatment of deciduous molar. Methods and materials: In this cross-sectional study, 38 patients who needed pulpotomy in both mandibular second molar of primary teeth were randomly divided into two groups, using the Randlist software. In the first meeting, infiltration with articaine 4% (epinephrine 1/100 000) was performed for all patients in group 1 on the left side of the mandible. At the next appointment, inferior alveolar nerve block was done with lidocaine 2% on the right side of the mandible (epinephrine 1/80 000). Notably, for all patients in the second group, the first injection was performed on the right second primary molar with articaine 4% (epinephrine 1/100 000), and inferior alveolar nerve block was also done with lidocaine 2% on the left side of the mandible (epinephrine 1/80 000). Results: Of the 38 patients included in the current study, 10 (26.3%) subjects in the lidocaine group and nine (23.6%) in the articaine group complained of pain during their dental treatment procedures, but this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion: According to the findings of this study, buccal infiltration of 4% articaine had a comparable anesthetic outcome to that of 2% lidocaine for inferior alveolar nerve block in pulp treatment of the second primary mandibular molars.