These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Anesthetic Efficacy of Buccal Infiltration Articaine versus Lidocaine for Extraction of Primary Molar Teeth.
    Author: Rathi NV, Khatri AA, Agrawal AG, M SB, Thosar NR, Deolia SG.
    Journal: Anesth Prog; 2019; 66(1):3-7. PubMed ID: 30883236.
    Abstract:
    The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine, both containing epinephrine, using a single buccal infiltration for extraction of primary molars.A total of 100 children requiring primary molar extraction received buccal infiltration using either 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine, both with epinephrine, with 50 children in each group. The Wong-Baker Facial Pain Scale (FPS) was used to evaluate pain perception subjectively. The heart rate and the blood pressure values were assessed objectively as an indirect measure of physiological pain perception. The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used for comparing mean pain scores, heart rate, and blood pressure in both the groups. Single buccal infiltration with articaine was sufficient for achieving palatal or lingual anesthesia in all the children receiving it while all children in the lidocaine group required supplemental anesthesia. The mean FPS value was found to be higher in lidocaine group and was statistically significant. The mean heart rate recorded during the intervention was less than the mean baseline values in the articaine group, which was found to be statistically significant. For pediatric patients age 7 to 12 years, single buccal infiltration with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine is more effective compared to 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine for primarly molar extraction.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]