Keywords :
Articaine, Children, Lignocaine, Local anesthesia, Pediatric population
Citation Information :
Grover J, Grover R, Gupta S, Mehra M, Gupta T, Kaur S. Comparative Evaluation of 4% Articaine and 2% Lignocaine Anesthetic Agents in Children: A Split-mouth Randomized Control Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (10):950-954.
Aim: The objective of the present study is to assess and compare the effectiveness of two different anesthetic agents, namely, 4% articaine and 2% lignocaine, in the extraction of primary molar teeth in children.
Materials and methods: The study included 25 children requiring bilateral extractions of primary molar, with extraction performed on one side with 4% articaine and the contralateral side extraction with 2% lignocaine at two separate appointments. The anesthetic efficacy was evaluated objectively by assessing pain and the child's behavior at baseline, during injection and during extraction using the sound, eye, and motor (SEM) scale objectively, and subjectively using the faces pain rating scale (FPS). The data were then compiled and subjected to statistical analysis.
Results: On statistical analysis, there was no statistically significant difference found between the two anesthetic agents during extraction of primary molar teeth, whereas a statistically significant difference was present between articaine and lignocaine during local anesthesia administration on the FPS scale. Also, there was no statistically significant difference found on SEM scale during the procedure between the two anesthetic agents.
Conclusion: Articaine can effectively be used as an alternative to lignocaine and inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) where a long-term procedure is required.
Clinical significance: In pediatric dentistry, articaine and lignocaine play a very important roles as local anesthetic agents, offering clinicians effective tools to manage pain and discomfort during dental procedures for children.
Arrow P. A comparison of articaine 4% and lignocaine 2% in block and infiltration analgesia in children. Aust Dent J 2012;57(3):325–333. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2012.01699.x.
Ramadurai N, Gurunathan D, Samuel AV, et al. Effectiveness of 2% Articaine as an anesthetic agent in children: randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Invest 2019;23:3543–3550. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2775-5.
Erfanparast L, Rahbar M, Pourkazemi M, et al. Comparison of effects exerted by 4% articaine buccal infiltration and 2% lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block on pain perception and behavioral feedback of children during pulp treatment of mandibular second primary molars. Maedica 2020;15(4):477. DOI: 10.26574/maedica.2020.15.4.477.
Kanaa MD, Whitworth JM, Meechan JG. A comparison of the efficacy of 4% articaine with 1: 100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1: 80,000 epinephrine in achieving pulpal anesthesia in maxillary teeth with irreversible pulpitis. J Endod 2012;38(3):279–282. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.11.010.
Gunasekaran S, Babu G, Vijayan V. Local anaesthesia in pediatric dentistry: An overview. J Multidiscip Dent Res 2020;6:16–21. DOI: 10.38138/JMDR/v6i1.3.
Jain K, Katge F, Chimata VK, et al. Comparative evaluation of anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine infiltration versus 2% lignocaine inferior alveolar nerve block for extraction of primary mandibular molars: A prospective, split-mouth, randomized controlled trial. J Indian Soc Pedodont Prevent Dent 2021;39(4):409-15.
Shehab LA, Basheer B, Baroudi K. Effectiveness of lidocaine Denti patch® system versus lidocaine gel as topical anesthetic agent in children. J Indian Soc Pedodont Prevent Dent 2015;33(4):285–290. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.165664.
Oulis CJ, Vadiakas GP, Vasilopoulou A. The effectiveness of mandibular infiltration compared to mandibular block anesthesia in treating primary molars in children. Pediatric Dent 1996;18:301–305. PMID: 8857658.
Chopra R, Marwaha M, Bansal K, et al. Evaluation of buccal infiltration with articaine and inferior alveolar nerve block with lignocaine for pulp therapy in mandibular primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;40(4):301–305. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-40.4.301.
Wong DL, Baker CM. Pain in children: comparison of assessment scales. Pediatr Nurs 1988;14(1):9–17. PMID: 3344163.
Wright GZ, Weinberger SJ, Friedman CS, et al. The use of articaine local anesthesia in children under 4 years of age—a retrospective report. Anesthesia Progress 1989;36(6):268. PMID: 2490059.
Kaufman E, Epstein JB, Naveh E, et al. A survey of pain, pressure, and discomfort induced by commonly used oral local anesthesia injections. Anesthesia Progress 2005;52(4):122–127. DOI: 10.2344/0003-3006(2005)52[122:ASP]2.0.CO;2.
Mikesell P, Nusstein J, Reader A, Beck M, Weaver J. A comparison of articaine and lidocaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks. J Endodont 2005;31(4):265–270. DOI: 10.1097/01.don.0000140576.36513.cb.
Kanaa MD, Whitworth JM, Corbett IP, et al. Articaine and lidocaine mandibular buccal infiltration anesthesia: A prospective randomized double-blind cross-over study. J Endod 2006;32(4):296–298. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2005.09.016.
Jung IY, Kim JH, Kim ES, et al. An evaluation of buccal infiltrations and inferior alveolar nerve blocks in pulpal anesthesia for mandibular first molars. J Endod 2008;34(1):11–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.09.006.