The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 19 , ISSUE 3 ( March, 2018 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparison of Visual Analog Scale Scores in Pain Assessment during Pulpotomy using Different Injection Materials in Children Aged 6 to 8 and 8 to 10 Years

Donya Alinejhad, Zahra Bahrololoomi, Alireza Navabazam, M Ali Asayesh

Citation Information : Alinejhad D, Bahrololoomi Z, Navabazam A, Ali Asayesh M. Comparison of Visual Analog Scale Scores in Pain Assessment during Pulpotomy using Different Injection Materials in Children Aged 6 to 8 and 8 to 10 Years. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (3):313-317.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2259

License: CC BY 3.0

Published Online: 00-03-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

Proper anesthesia and pain management during treatment are most important concerns in dentistry for people of all ages, especially children. This study compared the success rate of lidocaine block with articaine buccal infiltration during anesthesia of the primary mandibular second molars in children aged 6 to 8 and 8 to 10 years.

Materials and methods

The present clinical trial was conducted on 40 children aged 6 to 8 and 8 to 10 years who were referred to the Department of Pediatrics of the Faculty of Dentistry at Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences in Yazd (Islamic Republic of Iran) and needed to be treated with pulpotomy on both primary mandibular second molars. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. At the first session, a group received articaine buccal infiltration and the other group experienced inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) block. At the next visit, this trend was reversed. Visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the pain during pulpotomy.

Results

Data were analyzed by Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (version 17) software using Mann–Whitney test. According to the results of this test, the pain during pulpotomy was significantly lower in the articaine group (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Articaine buccal infiltration can be employed for pulpotomy treatment in primary mandibular second molars.

Clinical significance

This research will eliminate block injection of lidocaine in children and utilize infiltration of articaine for pulpotomy treatment of mandibular teeth, hence preventing lingual nerve damage and prolonging paresthesia of IAN, lip, and cheek bite due to IAN block anesthesia.

How to cite this article

Alinejhad D, Bahrololoomi Z, Navabazam A, Asayesh MA. Comparison of Visual Analog Scale Scores in Pain Assessment during Pulpotomy using Different Injection Materials in Children Aged 6 to 8 and 8 to 10 Years. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018;19(3):313-317.


  1. Administering local anaesthesia to paediatric dental patients—current status and prospects for the future. Int J Paediatr Dent 2002 Mar;12(2):80-89.
  2. Postoperative pain in children. Anaesthesia 1996 Jun;51(6):588-590.
  3. The efficacy of preoperative analgesic administration for postoperative pain management of pediatric dental patients. Anesth Pain Control Dent 1993 Spring;2(2):102-106.
  4. McDonald and Avery dentistry for the child and adolescent. 9th ed. Maryland Heights (MO): Mosby Elsevier; 2011. p. 243.
  5. The young child’s response to repeated dental procedures. J Dent Res 1977 Jul;56(7):734-738.
  6. Evaluation of mandibular infiltration versus block anesthesia in pediatric dentistry. ASDC J Dent Child 1997 Jul-Aug;64(4):276-281.
  7. Articaine use in children: a review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2012 Dec;13(6):293-296.
  8. Current concepts in vital primary pulp therapy. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2002 Sep;3(3):115-120.
  9. Articaine for supplemental intraosseous anesthesia in patients with irreversible pulpitis. J Endod 2006 Nov;32(11):1044-1047.
  10. A comparison between articaine HCl and lidocaine HCl in pediatric dental patients. Pediatr Dent 2000 Jul-Aug;22(4):307-311.
  11. Comparison of pre-emptive ibuprofen, paracetamol, and placebo administration in reducing post-operative pain in primary tooth extraction. Int J Paediatr Dent 2011 Jul;21(4):306-313.
  12. Predictors of a child’s ability to use a visual analogue scale. Child Care Health Dev 2003 Jul;29(4):281-290.
  13. Comparison of articaine 4% and lidocaine 2% in paediatric dental patients. Int J Paediatr Dent 2006 Jul;16(4):252-256.
  14. Anesthetic efficacy of supplemental buccal and lingual infiltrations of articaine and lidocaine after an inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with irreversible pulpitis. J Endod 2009 Jul;35(7):925-929.
  15. A comparison of paracetamol, ibuprofen or their combination for pain relief following extractions in children under general anaesthesia: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Paediatr Dent 2007 May;17(3):169-177.
  16. ; Fields, HW Jr.; McTigue, DJ.; Nowak, A. Pediatric dentistry: infancy through adolescence. 5th ed. St. Louis (MO): Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013. pp. 402-403.
  17. The efficacy and safety of articaine versus lignocaine in dental treatment: a meta-analysis. J Dent 2010 Apr;38(4):307-317.
  18. Articaine-the best choice of local anesthetic in contemporary dentistry. Georgian Med News 2011 Jan;190:15-23.
  19. Removal of maxillary teeth with buccal 4% articaine without using palatal anesthesia—a comparative double blind study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Med Pathol 2014 Apr;27:154-158.
  20. The effectiveness of infiltration anesthesia in the mandibular primary molar region. Pediatr Dent 1991 Sep-Oct;13(5):278-283.
  21. The effectiveness of mandibular infiltration compared to mandibular block anesthesia in treating primary molars in children. Pediatr Dent 1996 Jul-Aug;18(4):301-305.
  22. Articaine and lidocaine mandibular buccal infiltration anesthesia: a prospective randomized double-blind cross-over study. J Endod 2006 Apr;32(4):296-298.
  23. An evaluation of different ibuprofen preparations in the control of postoperative pain after third molar surgery. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1991 Jan;31(1):83-87.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.