Articaine use in children: A review

The efficacy of articaine in pain management during endodontic procedures in pediatric patients

OBJECTIVE

This trial aimed to study the efficacy of articaine in pain management during endodontic procedures in pediatric patients.

METHODS

Ninety-eight children who received endodontic painless treatment were collected and randomly divided into the control group and observation group, with 49 cases in each group. The control group received infiltration anesthesia with lidocaine, and the observation group received infiltration anesthesia with articaine. Anesthesia effect, anesthesia onset time, sensory recovery time, duration of anesthesia, pain intensity, blood pressure, heart rate, and adverse reactions were compared.

RESULTS

The effective rate of anesthesia in the observation group was higher than that in the control group. The anesthesia onset time and sensory recovery time were shorter, the duration of anesthesia was longer, and the VAS score and facial expression score were lower in the observation group than in the control group. The heart rate of the observation group was lower, and diastolic blood pressure was higher than those of the control group. The total incidence of adverse reactions in the observation group was lower than that in the control group.

CONCLUSION

In the treatment of dental pulp diseases in children, the use of articaine can achieve better anesthesia effect and rapid onset of anesthesia and has less impact on the patient's blood pressure and heart rate, but it also can relieve pain and has good safety after the use of medication. It is worthy of clinical application.

The Use of Local Anesthesia in Pediatric Dentistry: A Survey of Specialists' Current Practices in Children and Attitudes in Relation to Articaine

Aims

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical practices of local anesthesia in children. The study also sought to investigate pediatric dentists' views on articaine infiltration anesthesia and their willingness to use it to replace the inferior dental nerve block in primary molars.

Materials and Methods

A cross-sectional survey was emailed to 183 registered specialists. Descriptive statistics along with chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used for data analysis.

Results

A total of 72 responses were received. The sample consisted of 62 (86.1%) females and 10 (13.8%) males with varying levels of experience. The vast majority of respondents (98.6%) used topical anesthesia in their practice with children. The most frequently used anesthetic agent was 2% lidocaine (72.2%) followed by 4% articaine (54.2%). The entire sample indicated that they frequently find difficulties in dose calculation for their child patient. Gender and level of experience did not significantly influence specialists' practice or their knowledge of local anesthesia. More than a third (31.9%) of participants were not happy to replace the block anesthesia with articaine infiltration for the treatment of lower primary molars. The most indicated reasons for this unwillingness were lack of effectiveness (11%) and inadequate scientific evidence (11%).

Conclusion

Most pediatric dentists used topical anesthesia with children. Lidocaine was the most commonly used injectable local anesthesia. Specialists' current practices of local anesthesia in children generally conformed well to good standards. However, inadequate knowledge regarding dose calculation was revealed. In addition, specialists' reluctance to use articaine infiltration instead of the block anesthesia was evident in the current population. Further studies, with larger sample size are encouraged.

Swiss paediatric dentists' preferences and experience on the use of articaine and other local/topical anaesthetics

PURPOSE

This study was conducted to explore the preference and experience of paediatric dentists based in Switzerland regarding the use of articaine and other local and topical anaesthesia.

METHODS

An 18-question survey was developed, piloted, and distributed to the members of the Swiss association of paediatric dentistry (n = 460). The following information were collected: most used local anaesthetic in different age groups, time needed to inject a full ampule, frequency of observed local and systemic side effects, application of topical anaesthetic prior to injection, time waited between application and the injection, and perceived effectiveness of topical anaesthetic. The dentists' responses were analysed with logistic regressions reporting odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) at 5%.

RESULTS

The response rate was 37% (n = 168) out of the 460 questionnaires sent, with the responders being predominantly female (67%) and 47-year-old on average. More than 80% of the dentists used articaine in all age groups. 45% of responders took longer than 60 s to inject a full ampule. Local and systemic side-effects were observed by 82% and 28% of respondents respectively, although the nature and the significance of those were not detailed due to the anonymous nature of the questionnaire. Significantly less local adverse effects were seen for older children (p = 0.04) and among dentists with more years of experience (p = 0.01). Most responders applied topical anaesthetic and half of them waited longer than 60 s before injection.

CONCLUSIONS

Articaine is a widely used local anaesthetic by the studied group of Swiss paediatric dentists regardless of patient's age. The use of topical anaesthetic before injection is a common practice with good perceived effectiveness.

Anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lignocaine in root canal treatment of teeth with molar incisor hypomineralization

CONTEXT

Inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) is considered the cornerstone in achieving anesthesia for mandibular molars. However, failure of routine lignocaine IANB to achieve profound anesthesia of the pulp has been reported in patients with molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH). Articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 has proven to provide total pain relief during most dental procedures.

AIMS

This study aimed to assess and compare the pain perception level in children using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) during root canal treatment after administering 4% articaine buccal infiltration (BI), 4% articaine IANB, and 2% lignocaine IANB.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Twenty-seven children aged 8-12 years, requiring root canal treatment of mandibular first permanent molars with MIH were randomly allocated into three groups - 4% articaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) BI, 4% articaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) IANB, and 2% lignocaine IANB. The efficacy of the anesthetic was determined by rating the pain perception of the child using a VAS.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

The scores marked by the children on the VAS were recorded and were statistically analyzed. Data were entered into Microsoft excel data sheet and were analyzed using SPSS for Windows version 17.0.

RESULTS

Patients anesthetized with 4% articaine IANB presented lesser pain scores compared to IANB with 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine BI on access opening and instrumentation of the root canals.

CONCLUSION

4% articaine IANB has better anesthetic efficacy than 4% articaine BI and 2% lignocaine IANB in anesthetising mandibular first permanent molars with MIH.

Effectiveness of buccal infiltration anaesthesia compared to inferior alveolar nerve block anaesthesia in primary mandibular molar extractions: a randomised controlled study

Aim The current study assessed the efficiency of buccal infiltration (BI) and inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) during the extraction of deciduous mandibular molars.Subjects and method A total of 112 children aged between 5-8 years with mandibular molar indicated for extraction were divided into two groups at random. The BI group was injected with 4% articaine using BI, while the IANB group was injected with 2% lidocaine using IANB. The effectiveness of both techniques was examined using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale (W-BFPRS); Faces, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) scale; and pulse oximetry.Results Using the W-BFPRS scale, success rates were 83.9% and 75.0% for the BI group and 82.1% and 71.4% for the IANB group during the injection and extraction, respectively, while using the FLACC scale, success rates were 83.9% and 92.9% for the BI group and 78.6% and 89.3% for the IANB group. In terms of pulse rate and oxygen saturation, there was no significant difference between the two groups.Conclusions BI with articaine is as efficient as IANB with lidocaine in the extraction of deciduous mandibular molars.

Comparative study of the anaesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% mepivacaine in mandibular third molar germectomy using different anaesthetic techniques: a split-mouth clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Currently, one of the most discouraging aspects for many patients undergoing dental procedures is the administration of local anaesthesia. Therefore, there is a constant search for new techniques to avoid the invasive and painful nature of the injection. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of local anaesthetics with articaine 4% or mepivacaine 2% (both with epinephrine 1:100.000), using different anaesthetic techniques to perform germectomy of lower third molars and to assess patients' feelings and pain during surgery.

METHODS

Totally 50 patients (ranged 11-16 years) who required germectomy of mandibular third molars were recruited. Each patient received local anaesthesia on one side with articaine inoculated with plexus technique while on the other side with mepivacaine using inferior alveolar nerve block technique. The patients' evaluation was performed on pre and intraoperative tactile-pressure feelings and intraoperative pain with four levels on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Surgical operations lasted less with more efficient analgesia when articaine was used. The additional intraosseous injection was required mainly in the mepivacaine group intraoperatively. A few patients had tactile-pressure feelings while intraoperative pain sensation was absent in 90% of cases with articaine. Significant differences were found in the cases who reported "absent" and "moderate" VAS values, favoring the use of articaine.

CONCLUSIONS

Articaine injected with a plexus anaesthetic technique seems to be more clinically manageable than mepivacaine for the mandibular third molar germectomy. The discomfort of tactile-pressure feelings and pain experienced was lower using articaine anaesthetic technique used.

Anesthetic efficacies of buccal with palatal injection versus buccal with intra-septal injection in permanent maxillary first molars of pediatric patients

The high success rate of dental treatment is dependent on the cooperation of pediatric patients during procedures. Dental treatment often causes pain, particularly in children. The factors in providing treatment to pediatric patients include the characteristics and location of the tooth, profoundness of the anesthesia including the type of local anesthetic, and cooperation of the patient. Previous studies have examined several techniques to successfully achieve profound pulpal anesthesia in maxillary permanent teeth. The dentist should select the injection technique to be used based on patient needs. In children, either buccal with palatal injections or buccal with intra-septal injections may be used to anesthetize the permanent maxillary first molar. Buccal with palatal injections are commonly used prior to routine maxillary dental procedures. Currently, there are only a few studies on the employment of buccal with intra-septal injections to anesthetize permanent maxillary first molars in pediatric patients. This review will focus on efficacy of buccal with palatal versus buccal with intra-septal pulpal anesthesia of the permanent maxillary first molars in pediatric patients and aim to determine which technique should be used during routine dental procedures.

[Local anesthesia in children younger than 4 years in dentistry: state of the question]

The article is a review of modern literature and an analysis of the legal framework regarding the use of local anesthetics in children under 4 years of age. There is a discussion of the validity of the off-label principle. In the domestic and foreign literature, there are publications highlighting the use of drugs based on 4% articaine in children under 4 years old, despite age-related contraindications according to the instructions. It is necessary to pay special attention to the regulatory status of the instructions for the medical use of the medicinal product. Summarizing the presented arguments, we can talk about the available spectrum of clinical studies, meta-analyzes and RCT data on the use of articaine in dental practice in children under 4 years of age, which indicates its effectiveness and is considered a safe alternative to lidocaine for use. in children of all ages.

Local Anesthetic Usage Among Dentists: German and International Data

The aim of this study was to analyze the use of dental local anesthetics in Germany compared with international data. The type and distribution of dental local anesthetics and added vasoconstrictors based on a representative sample of German dentists itemized over a period of 7 years (2011 to 2017) were evaluated and statistically analyzed. The results were compared with international dental local anesthetic consumption data published since 2005. With a consistent market share of nearly 98%, articaine was the first-line local dental anesthetic agent in Germany. During the investigation period, German dental local anesthetics with epinephrine 1:200,000 had ∼50% market shares, whereas formulations with epinephrine 1:100,000 had 40% to 45% market shares. Articaine, with market shares between 38% and 81%, was also the preferred anesthetic agent in various other countries, with the notable exceptions of the United Kingdom and the United States, where lidocaine was the preferred local anesthetic agent. Epinephrine was the preferred vasoconstrictor internationally, similar to Germany. The larger market share of higher concentrated epinephrine 1:100,000 was remarkable, considering the increasing number of medically compromised patients. Increased consideration for using agents with reduced dosages of epinephrine (1:200,000) is generally recommended.

United Kingdom pediatric dentistry specialist views on the administration of articaine in children

Background

Lidocaine is the gold standard local anesthetic (LA) for UK pediatric dental treatment. Recent reports suggest frequent Articaine use in Europe and Canada, with evidence indicating more profound anesthesia. The aim of this study was to examine pediatric dentistry specialist experiences and practices relating to Articaine administration in the UK.

Methods

A literature review was followed by a survey using an anonymous 15-item electronic questionnaire, which was sent to 200 registered British Society of Pediatric Dentistry (BSPD) specialists. Descriptive analyses, Z score, chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, and Spearman's correlation test were performed.

Results

Sixty-one (30.5%) participants responded, and 12 (19.7%) indicated Articaine as their first line anesthetic. Articaine was used daily or weekly by 38 (62.3%) respondents, depending on the clinical context. Articaine was commonly used to avoid inferior alveolar nerve blocks and gain more profound anesthesia in abscessed or hypomineralized teeth. Participants reported significantly more adverse effects with lidocaine (Fisher's exact test, P < 0.0001) than with Articaine. Articaine was most often administered in children aged > 4 years via infiltration techniques. Only 15 (24.6%) respondents reported awareness of guidelines for Articaine use in pediatric patients.

Conclusions

Articaine use in pediatric dentistry is common; however, evidence supporting its practice is limited. Several specialists follow conventions based on anecdotal evidence. Formulating guidance to aid decision-making when treating pediatric patients under LA would be beneficial.

Articaine efficacy and safety in young children below the age of four years: An equivalent parallel randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

Pain control is a mandatory aspect in pediatric dentistry office through local anesthesia.

AIM

To assess the safety and efficacy of 4% articaine local anesthetic in young children below four years old.

DESIGN

An equivalent randomized control trial with two parallel arms included 184 young children (92 per group) aged from 36 to 47 months seeking pulpotomy of mandibular primary molars which performed after buccal infiltration injection. The control group received lidocaine hydrochloride 2% with epinephrine 1:100 000. The intervention was articaine hydrochloride 4% with epinephrine 1:100 000. Children's behavior during injection and treatment have assessed using Faces, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) and child's behavior using Frankl Behavior Rating Scale (FBRS). In addition, post-operative complications have been addressed.

RESULTS

Both anesthetic agents were equivalent during the injection phase. During the treatment phase, the absolute risk difference (ARR) between the two groups was 0.120 (95% CI: -0.003; 0.243). The maximum limit of 95% CI surpassed the margin of equivalence, indicating that less pain has been expressed during pulpotomy among children delivered articaine when compared to their counterparts in the lidocaine group. Concerning post-operative complications, no statistically significant difference was detected between the two anesthetic drugs.

CONCLUSION

The findings supported the efficient and secure use of articaine hydrochloride 4% with epinephrine 1:100 000 to treat children between the ages of 3 and below 4 years old.

Comparison of the efficacy of a standard inferior alveolar nerve block versus articaine infiltration for invasive dental treatment in permanent mandibular molars in children: a pilot study

AIM

To determine whether there is a clinical difference between an inferior dental block (IDB) using 2% lidocaine and a buccal infiltration (BI) using 4% articaine, when anaesthetising mandibular first permanent molars in children.

METHODS

Patients aged 8-15 years who required invasive dental treatment on a lower molar tooth were randomised. The patient and dental operator were blind to the type of LA used. The patient used a visual analogue scale to record their experience of pain during injection and treatment.

RESULTS

Twenty six teeth were anaesthetised (13 articaine, 13 lidocaine). When using an IDB, all treatment was completed successfully. On one occasion, anaesthesia was deemed unsuccessful when using a BI of articaine. There was no statistical difference in the mean VAS for the perceived pain of injection or treatment.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that invasive dental treatment on a mandibular molar tooth can be completed successfully in children using a BI of articaine. In addition, the perceived pain of injection and treatment when using a BI of articaine is comparable to an IDB with lidocaine.

Effects of pre-emptive analgesia on efficacy of buccal infiltration during pulpotomy of mandibular primary molars: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial

Objective: To assess the effect of preoperative administration of ibuprofen and acetaminophen on the efficacy of buccal infiltration for pulp therapy in mandibular primary molars. Materials and methods: A randomized controlled trial with an ID no. NCT03423329 in Clinical-Trials.gov was conducted in the outpatient clinic of Paediatric Dentistry Department at Ain Shams University. The study was designed with two test arms where either ibuprofen or acetaminophen was administered to children whereas in the control arm a multivitamin placebo was used. Children's self-reported pain responses were recorded using Wong-Baker FACES pain scale. For statistical analysis, Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was used to compare between the three groups whereas Friedman's test was used to study changes within each group. Results: In a sample of 60 children, a significant decrease in the mean pain rating scores was detected in all groups where success rates ranged from 40% with ibuprofen to 55% and 65% with acetaminophen and placebo, respectively. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the three groups regarding severity of pain during access cavity preparation. Conclusions: Both analgesics have no clinical advantage over the placebo in increasing the efficacy of buccal infiltration during pulp therapy in mandibular primary molars.

The Efficacy of Buccal Infiltration of 4% Articaine and PSA Injection of 2% Lidocaine on Anesthesia of Maxillary Second Molars

Introduction:

During the early mixed dentition period, the location of the deciduous maxillary second molar results in ineffectiveness of the infiltration technique in this area. In such cases, administration of posterior superior alveolar (PSA) nerve block is recommended; however, such a technique has some complications. The present study was undertaken to compare the effects of buccal infiltration of 4% Articaine and PSA technique with 2% Lidocaine on the success of anesthesia of maxillary deciduous second molars in 6 to 9-year old children.

Methods and Materials:

In the present double-blind randomized clinical trial, 56 children aged 6-9 years requiring vital pulp therapy of deciduous maxillary second molar were included. In group 1, 4% Articaine was injected using a buccal infiltration technique. In group 2, 2% Lidocaine was injected using the PSA nerve block technique. After 10 min, the caries was removed and access cavity preparation was instituted. The patients were asked to report the presence or absence of pain during the procedure. Therefore, the existence of pain was measured by the patient's self-report. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistical methods and the chi-squared test.

Results:

Pain was reported by 6 (21.4%) and 9 (32.1%) subjects in the Articaine and Lidocaine groups, respectively. Chi-squared test did not reveal any significant differences between the two groups (P=0.54).

Conclusion:

Under the limitations of the present study, there was no significant differences between the results of Articaine buccal infiltration and Lidocaine PSA technique, so Articaine buccal infiltration can be used as a substitute for the PSA technique.

Evaluation of Buccal Infiltration with Articaine and Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block with Lignocaine for Pulp Therapy in Mandibular Primary Molars

OBJECTIVE

Failure of inferior alveolar nerve block in achieving profound anesthesia of the pulp due to various reasons has led to the introduction of more potent local anesthetic agents like articaine. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of buccal infiltration with articaine in achieving pulpal anesthesia of primary molars as compared to inferior alveolar nerve block with lignocaine.

STUDY DESIGN

30 patients (4-8 years) with indication of pulp therapy in at least two mandibular primary molars were selected. Patients were randomly assigned to receive nerve block with lignocaine or infiltration with articaine on first appointment and the other solution on second appointment. All the pulpotomies and pulpectomies were performed by a pediatric dentist. Two researchers standing at a distance of 1.5 m recorded the Pain Scores and Sound, Eye, Motor (SEM) scores. After the completion of procedure, the patient was asked to record the Facial Image score and Heft-Parker Visual Analogue Score (HP-VAS).

RESULTS

Pain Score recorded at the time of injection showed significantly more movements with block as compared to infiltration (p<0.001). SEM scores at time of pulp extirpation were also higher for block than infiltration (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Articaine infiltration has the potential to replace inferior alveolar nerve block for primary mandibular molars.

Hypnosis and Local Anesthesia for Dental Pain Relief-Alternative or Adjunct Therapy?-A Randomized, Clinical-Experimental Crossover Study

This prospective randomized clinical crossover trial was designed to compare hypnosis and local anesthesia for experimental dental pain relief. Pain thresholds of the dental pulp were determined. A targeted standardized pain stimulus was applied and rated on the Visual Analogue Scale (0-10). The pain threshold was lower under hypnosis (58.3 ± 17.3, p < .001), maximal (80.0) under local anesthesia. The pain stimulus was scored higher under hypnosis (3.9 ± 3.8) than with local anesthesia (0.0, p < .001). Local anesthesia was superior to hypnosis and is a safe and effective method for pain relief in dentistry. Hypnosis seems to produce similar effects observed under sedation. It can be used in addition to local anesthesia and in individual cases as an alternative for pain control in dentistry.