Objective: To compare and evaluate the efficacy, hemodynamic changes, and postoperative complications of 4% articaine using buccal infiltration and 2% lidocaine using inferior alveolar nerve block in mandibular primary molars of children aged 6 to 8 years.
Schlagwörter: articaine, buccal infiltration, inferior alveolar nerve block, lidocaine, pain
Method and materials: 100 participants were randomly distributed to receive either 4% articaine using infiltration anesthesia or 2% lidocaine using inferior alveolar nerve block on each side of the mandibular arch, in two different appointments, after a 1-week interval. The pain perception was evaluated using visual analog scale (VAS) and Wong-Baker Faces pain rating scale (WBFPRS). In both the appointments, the efficacy and onset of anesthesia were evaluated using an electric pulp tester. Hemodynamic parameters, which included pulse rate and oxygen saturation levels, were evaluated using a pulse oximeter. Postoperative complications were evaluated at 24-hour follow-up.
Results: Pain score recorded with block was more painful compared to infiltration (P < .05). Anesthetic success was observed with both the local anesthetic agents, with no significant differences (P > .05). Shorter onset of action was observed with articaine (P < .05). Statistically significant differences between groups were noted with regard to heart rate (P < .05). Oxygen saturation levels did not show significant differences (P > .05). When postoperative complications were evaluated with either 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine, very few adverse effects were recorded (P > .05).
Conclusion: Buccal infiltration using 4% articaine has the potential to replace 2% lidocaine using inferior alveolar nerve block in children.(Quintessence Int 2021;52:780–786; doi: 10.3290/j.qi.b1492247)