» Articles » PMID: 37526883

Comparative Study of Articaine 4% Versus Lidocaine 2% in the Local Anesthesia of Permanent Mandibular First Molars Affected by MIH: a Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview
Publisher Springer
Specialties Dentistry
Pediatrics
Date 2023 Aug 1
PMID 37526883
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: The current study compares articaine 4% with lidocaine 2% in terms of injection pain and effectiveness of anesthesia when treating permanent mandibular first molars (PMFMs) affected by molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH). In addition to comparing the complications of local anesthesia for both solutions.

Methods: The sample included 20 children. Each child was randomly assigned to either articaine 4% or lidocaine 2% in their first session with the other solution being used at the subsequent session. Injection pain and the effectiveness of anesthesia were assessed using the Wong-Baker Faces® Pain Rating Scale and the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) scale. Parents were asked to report any complications of local anesthesia. The Wilcoxon-matched pairs signed-rank test was used to analyze the data.

Results: Patients experienced greater pain when receiving articaine 4% injections according to both scales, differences were statistically significant when using the Wong-Baker Faces® Pain Rating scale (p < 0.05). Whereas, the FLACC scale did not show such differences (P > 0.05). Although there were no significant differences between the two solutions regarding the effectiveness of local anesthesia according to both scales (P > 0.05), articaine 4% was clinically found to be more effective than lidocaine 2%. No complications of local anesthesia were reported.

Conclusions: Articaine 4% injection was more painful than lidocaine 2%. However, both solutions were effective in anesthetizing PMFMs affected by MIH and without anesthetic complications in the studied sample.

Trial Registration: Clinical trial, NCT05200884, ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05200884 ).

Citing Articles

Unilateral molar Incisor hypomineralization influences the chewing side? an observational study in children.

Cardoso-Silva L, Gomes B, de Faria Melo R, Catananti I, Lopes B, de Almeida I Clin Oral Investig. 2024; 28(12):634.

PMID: 39511031 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-024-06037-y.


Application of articaine in endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: a retrospective study.

Liu S, Shui L, Liu Z, Li Q Front Med (Lausanne). 2024; 11:1332793.

PMID: 39144653 PMC: 11322971. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1332793.

References
1.
Alzahrani F, Duggal M, Munyombwe T, Tahmassebi J . Anaesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine for extraction and pulpotomy of mandibular primary molars: an equivalence parallel prospective randomized controlled trial. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2018; 28(3):335-344. DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12361. View

2.
Arrow P . A comparison of articaine 4% and lignocaine 2% in block and infiltration analgesia in children. Aust Dent J. 2012; 57(3):325-33. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2012.01699.x. View

3.
Cabasse C, Marie-Cousin A, Huet A, Sixou J . Computer-assisted intraosseous anaesthesia for molar and incisor hypomineralisation teeth. A preliminary study. Odontostomatol Trop. 2015; 38(149):5-9. View

4.
Chinn S . A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2000; 19(22):3127-31. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0258(20001130)19:22<3127::aid-sim784>3.0.co;2-m. View

5.
Discepolo K, Baker S . Adjuncts to traditional local anesthesia techniques in instance of hypomineralized teeth. N Y State Dent J. 2012; 77(6):22-7. View