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

Comparative study of articaine 4% versus lidocaine 2% in the local anesthesia of permanent mandibular first molars affected by MIH: a randomized controlled trial

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 ).

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.

Can 4% Articaine Buccal Infiltration Replace Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block (IANB) with 2% Xylocaine for Pulp Therapy in Primary Mandibular Molars? A Systematic Review

Aim and objective

This systematic review aims to compare the efficacy of 4% articaine buccal supraperiosteal/infiltration to that of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 2% xylocaine in providing pulpal anesthesia for carrying out pulp therapy of deciduous mandibular molars in children.

Materials and methods

PubMed, Cochrane Registry, and Ovid SP were searched in the timeframe between years 1991 and 2020 with appropriate MeSH terms. Full texts were selected only after a preliminary screening of relevant titles and abstracts.

Results

Five studies were involved for the final qualitative analysis. The parameter sought for was "Pain during pulp therapy after injection with buccal supraperiosteal/infiltration (4% articaine) or IANB (2% lignocaine) in primary mandibular molars. Three studies evaluated objective pain (operator reported) during pulp therapy, reported significantly lower pain scores with articaine buccal infiltration (BI). Among the two studies that evaluated subjective pain, one study reported a significantly lower pain score with the articaine BI group. The other study reported no difference statistically between both groups.

Conclusion

Under the bounds of this systematic review, BI with 4% articaine might be equivalent to IANB with 2% lignocaine for providing pulpal anesthesia required for pulp therapy procedures in primary mandibular molars; however, the quality of evidence is low, more number of well-controlled studies with adequate sized sample should be conducted out to verify the same.

How to cite this article

Tirupathi SP, Rajasekhar S, Ganesh M, et al. Can 4% Articaine Buccal Infiltration Replace Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block (IANB) with 2% Xylocaine for Pulp Therapy in Primary Mandibular Molars? A Systematic Review. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(3):420-425.

Can buccal infiltration of articaine replace traditional inferior alveolar nerve block for the treatment of mandibular molars in pediatric patients?: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

It is unclear if buccal articaine infiltration can be used as an alternative to standard inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for treating mandibular molars in pediatric patients. Therefore, this study aimed to pool evidence to compare the efficacy of buccal infiltration of articaine vs IANB with lignocaine for pediatric dental procedures.

Material and Methods

We searched the PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the two techniques in pediatric patients and reporting the success of anesthesia and/or pain during treatment. PRISMA guidelines were followed.

Results

Seven RCTs were included. Pooled analysis of five studies indicated no statistically significant difference in the success rates of the two anesthetic techniques (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.13, 7.96; I2=69%, p=0.98). Meta-analysis of data from the four studies demonstrated no statistically significant difference in pain during the procedure with buccal infiltration of articaine or IANB with lignocaine (SMD: 0.62; 95% CI: -1.37, 0.12; I2=88%, p=0.10).

Conclusions

Evidence suggests that buccal infiltration of articaine is a viable alternative to IANB with lignocaine in pediatric patients for treating mandibular molars. Based on the confidence intervals, there may be a tendency of higher success rates with buccal infiltration of articaine.

Key words:Lignocaine, articaine, primary dentition, children, molars.

Articaine in dentistry: an overview of the evidence and meta-analysis of the latest randomised controlled trials on articaine safety and efficacy compared to lidocaine for routine dental treatment

OBJECTIVES

To comprehensively review the existing studies of articaine in dentistry and conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to answer the following Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome question: "Is articaine a safe and efficacious local anaesthetic for routine dental treatment compared to lidocaine?"

METHODS

Database searches were conducted in Medline Ovid, Medline Pubmed, Scopus, Emcare, Proquest and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials. Inclusion criteria were all existing English, human, randomised controlled trials of interventions involving 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine in routine dental treatment. Twelve studies were included for meta-analysis using Cochrane Review Manager 5 software. Anaesthetic success odds ratios were calculated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Articaine had a higher likelihood of achieving anaesthetic success than lidocaine overall and in all subgroup analyses with varying degrees of significance. Overall (OR: 2.17, 95% CI: 1.50, 3.15, I² = 62%) articaine had 2.17 times the likelihood of anaesthetic success of lidocaine (P < 0.0001). For mandibular blocks (OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.98, I² = 0%) articaine had 1.5 times the likelihood of anaesthetic success of lidocaine (P = 0.004). For all infiltrations, maxillary and mandibular (OR: 2.78, 95% CI: 1.61, 4.79, I² = 66%) articaine had 2.78 times the likelihood of anaesthetic success of lidocaine (P = 0.0002). None of the studies reported any major local anaesthetic-related adverse effects as a result of the interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Articaine is a safe and efficacious local anaesthetic for all routine dental procedures in patients of all ages, and more likely to achieve successful anaesthesia than lidocaine in routine dental treatment. Neither anaesthetic has a higher association with anaesthetic-related adverse effects.

Can single buccal infiltration with 4% articaine induce sufficient analgesia for the extraction of primary molars in children: a systematic literature review

This systematic review aims to determine if a single buccal infiltration (without palatal infiltration in the maxilla and Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in the mandible) with 4% articaine can induce adequate analgesia for the extraction of primary molars (Maxillary and Mandibular) in children. PubMed, Ovid SP, and Embase were searched for studies published between January 1990 and March 2020 with the relevant MeSH terms. Titles and abstracts were screened preliminarily, followed by the full-texts of the included studies. Five articles were included for this systematic review. The outcome investigated was “Procedural pain during the extraction of primary molars after injection with single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine in comparison to single buccal infiltration, double infiltration (buccal and palatal/lingual), and inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% lignocaine.” Of the five studies that evaluated subjective pain during extraction, two reported no significant difference between the articaine and lignocaine groups, and the remaining three reported lower subjective pain during extraction in the articaine group. Only two studies evaluated objective pain scores during extraction, and both studies reported lower pain scores in the articaine group. There is insufficient evidence to justify the statement that a single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine alone is sufficient for the extraction of primary molars. Further evidence is required to justify the claim that palatal infiltrations and IANB can be replaced with the use of 4% articaine single buccal infiltration for the extraction of primary molars in children.