Journal of Isfahan Dental School

A Comparison between Articaine Mandibular Infiltration and Lidocaine Mandibular Block Anaesthesia in first Permanent Molars of Children Aged 8- 11 Years

Document Type : مقاله‌های پژوهشی

Authors

Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: One of the most important issues in pediatric dentistry is pain control during treatment. The inferior alveolar nerve block has some limitations as a conventional technique for the anesthesia of mandibular permanent molars, necessitating the use of alternative techniques, one of which is the infiltration technique. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of inferior alveolar dental nerve block using lidocaine with infiltration technique with articaine in mandibular first permanent molar anesthesia in children 8−11 year of age.
Materials and Methods: In this randomized cross-over clinical trial on 42 children 8−11 year of age both mandibular first permanent molars were restored. Block or infiltration injection was selected randomly. Patient's behavior was registered in two steps of injection and restoration using the SEM scores. For comparison of the two sides, Wilcoxon signed rank test and SPSS 20 were used (α = 0.05). 
Results: Based on the results, the infiltration technique resulted in a decrease in all the three SEM scores compared to block injection (p value < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the efficacy of these two anesthetic techniques (p value > 0.05). 
Conclusion: It appears that infiltration technique with articaine is a better alternative for block technique with lidocaine in the restoration of the mandibular first permanent molars.
Key words: Articaine, Inferior alveolar nerve, Infiltration, Lidocaine

1. Casamassimo PS, Fields HW, McTigue DJ. Pediatric dentistry: infancy through adolescence. 5th ed. New York, NY: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013. P. 55, 92, 99, 435.
2. Malamed SF. Hand book of local anesthesia. 6th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2013.
3. Malamed SF, Gagnon S, Leblanc D. Efficacy of articaine: A new amide local anesthetic. J Am Dent Assoc 2007; 131(5): 635-42.
4. Becker DE, Reed KL. Essentials of local anesthetic pharmacology. Anesth Prog 2006; 53(3): 98-109.
5. Paxton K, Thome DE. Efficacy of articaine formulations: Quantitative reviews. Dent Clin North Am 2010; 54(4): 643-53.
6. Berde CB, Strichartz GR. Local anesthesia. In: Miller RD. editor. Miller's anesthesia. 6th ed. London, UK: Churchill Livingstone; 2005. p. 573-603.
7. Oertel R, Rahn R, Kirch W. Clinical pharmacokinetics of articaine. Clin Pharmacokinet 1997; 33(6): 417-25.
8. Dean JA, Avery DR, McDonald RE. McDonald and Avery dentistry for the child and adolescent. 9th ed. New York, NY: Elsevier Health Sciences 2010. p. 242-9.
9. Oulis CJ, Vadiakas GP, Vasilopoulou A. The effectiveness of mandibular infiltration compared to mandibular block anesthesia in treating primary molars in children. Pediatr Dent 1996; 18(4): 301-5.
10. Zafarmand A, Aghaeepoor N, Amiri Tehrani N. Effectiveness of mandibular infiltration compared with mandibular block technique in second primary molar pulpotomy. J Dent Sch Shahid Beheshti Univ Med Sci 2004: 22(3); 470-7. [In Persian].
11. Hawkins JM, Moore PA. Local anesthesia: advances in agents and techniques. Dent Clin North Am 2002; 46(4): 719-32.
12. Wright GZ, Stigers JI. Non pharmacologic management of children’s behaviors. In: McDonald RE, Avery DR, Dean JA. Editors. Dentistry for the Child and Adolescent. 9th ed. St. Louis: Mosby Co; 2011. p. 31.
13. Sharaf AA. Evaluation of mandibular infiltration versus block anesthesia in pediatric dentistry. ASDC J Dent Child 1997; 64(4): 276-81.
14. Ghasemi D, Amadi N, Hajiahmadi M, Jabarifar E. Comparison of the efficacy of two anesthetic techniques of mandibular primary first molar: A randomized clinical trial. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2013; 10(5): 620-3
15. Donohue D, Garcia-Godoy F, King D, Bainwell G. Evaluation of mandibular infiltration versus block anesthesia in pediatric dentistry. ASDC J Dent Child 1993; 60(2): 104-6.
16. Maniglia-ferreira C, Almeida-Gomes F, Carvalho-Sousa B, Barbosa AV, Lins CC, Souza FD, et al. Clinical evaluation of the use of three anesthetics in endodontics. Acta Odontol Latinoam 2009; 22(1): 21-6.
17. MC Entire M, Nusstein J, Drum M, Reader A, Beck M. Anesthetic efficacy of 4% Articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine versus 4% articaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine as a primary buccal infiltration in the mandibular first molar. J Endod 2011; 37(4): 450-4.
18. Hargreaves KM, Cohen S. Pathway of the pulp. 10th ed. St Louis: Mosby; 2010. p. 697.
19. O'Bryan D. How to give a Painless injection. 2012. [Online]. [2017 Jan 12]; Available from: URL: http://www.speareducation.com/spear-review/2012/08/how-to-give-a-painless-injection-part-i.
20. Wright GZ, Weinberger SJ, Marti R, Plotzke O. The effectiveness of infiltration anesthesia in the mandibular primary molar region. Pediatr Dent 1991; 13(5): 278-83.
21. Ram D, Peretz B. Reaction of children to maxillary infiltration and mandibular block injection. Paediatr Dent 2001; 23(4): 343-6.
22. Jones CM, Heidmann J, Gerrish AC. Children’s rating of dental injection and treatment pain, and the influence of the time taken to administer the injection. Int J Paediatr Dent 1995; 5(2): 81-5.
23. Yassen GH. Evaluation of mandibular infiltration versus mandibular block anaesthesia in treating primary canines in children. Int J Pediatr Dent 2010; 20(1): 43-9.
24. Rajput F, Katpar SH, Shaikh MI, Khatoon S. Evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine as buccal infiltration vs 2% lidocaine as IANB in the mandibular 1st molar with irreversible pulpitis. Pakistan Oral & Dental Journal 2015; 35(1): 125-8.
25. Huang YD, Xia H, Li XD, Yang XZ, Pei ZQ, Xia X. A [Comparison of clinical anesthetic efficacy of articaine infiltration and lidocaine blocking for microport extraction of impacted mandibular molar]. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2011; 29(3): 268-71. [In Chinese].
26. Abdullah WA, Khalil H, Sheta S. Articaine (4%) buccal infiltration versus lidocaine (2%) inferior alveolar nerve block for mandibular teeth extraction in patient on warfarin treatment. J Anesth Clin Res 2014; 5(8): 1-4
27. Haghgoo R, Vahid Golpayegani M. Comparison of effectiveness infiltration with block in anaesthetizing mandibular primary molar in children aged 6-9 years old. J Dent Sch Shahid Beheshti Univ Med Sci 2004; 22(3): 416-24. [In Persian].
Journal of Isfahan Dental School
Volume 15, Issue 1 - Serial Number 1
March 2019
Pages 17-25