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

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.

articaine, buccal infiltration, primary molars

1. Meechan JG. How to overcome failed local anaesthesia. Br Dent J. 186(1):15-20, 1999.

2. Keetley A and Moles DR. A Clinical Audit into the Success Rate of Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block Analgesia in General Dental Practice. Primary dental care, 8(4):139-142, 2001.

3. Corbett IP, Kanaa MD, Whitworth JM, Meechan JG. Articaine Infiltration for Anesthesia of Mandibular First Molars. J Endod, 34(5), 2008.

4. Jung IY, Kim JH, Kim ES, Lee CY, Lee SJ. An evaluation of buccal infiltrations and inferior alveolar nerve blocks in pulpal anesthesia for mandibular first molars. J Endod. 34(1):11-3, 2008.

5. Leith R, Lynch K, O’Connell AC. Articaine use in children: A review. Eur Arch Paed Dent, 13(6): 293-6, 2012.

6. Ram D, Peretz B. Reactions of children to maxillary infiltration and mandibular block injections. Pediatr Dent. 23(4):343-6, 2001.

7. Wright GZ, Weinberger SJ, Marti R and Plotzke O. The effectiveness of infiltration anaesthesia in the mandibular primary molar region. Pediatr Dent.1991;13 (5):278-283

8. Kanno CM, de Oliveira JA, Cannon M, Carvalho AA. The mandibular lingula’s position in children as a reference to inferior alveolar nerve block. J Dent Child (Chic). 72(2):56-60, 2005.

9. Allen KD, Kotil D, Larzelere RE, Hutfless S, Beiraghi S. Comparison of a computerized anaesthesia device with a traditional syringe in preschool children. Pediatr Dent. 24(4):315-320, 2002

10. Gibson RS, Allen K, Hutfless S, Beiraghi S. The Wand vs. traditional injection: a comparison of pain related behaviours. Pediatr Dent. 22(6):458-462, 2000

11. Ram D & Peretz B. Assessing the pain reaction of children receiving periodontal ligament anesthesia using a computerized device (Wand). J Clin Pediatr Dent. 27(3):247-250, 2003

12. Versloot J, Veerkamp JS, Hoogstraten J. Pain behaviour and distress in children during two sequential dental visits: comparing a computerised anaesthesia delivery system and a traditional syringe. Br Dent J. Jul 12; 205(1):E2; discussion 30-1, 2008

13. Ashkenazi M, Blumer S, Eli I. Effectiveness of various modes of computerized delivery of local anaesthesia in primary maxillary molars. Pediatr Dent 28:29-38, 2006

14. Saxena P, Gupta SK, Newaskar V, Chandra A. Advances in dental local anaesthesia techniques and devices: An update. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 4(1):19-24, 2013

15. Mikesell P, Nusstein J, Reader A, Beck M, Weaver J. A comparison of articaine and lidocaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks. J Endod 31:265- 270, 2005.

16. Haase A, Reader A, Nusstein J, Beck M, Drum M. Comparing anesthetic efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine as a supplemental buccal infiltration of the mandibular first molar after an inferior alveolar nerve block. J Am Dent Assoc. 139(9):1228-35, 2008.

17. Abdulwahab M, Boynes S, Moore P, Seifikar S, Al-Jazzaf A, Alshuraidah A, Zovko J, Close J. The efficacy of six local anaesthetic formulations used for posterior mandibular buccal infiltration anaesthesia. J Am Dent Assoc. 140(8):1018-24, 2009.

18. Qulis CJ, Vadiakas GP, Vasilopoulou A. The effectiveness of mandibular infiltration compared to mandibular block anesthesia in treating primary molars in children. Pediatr Dent. 18(4), 1996.

19. Yilmaz Y, Eyuboglu O, Keles S. Comparison of the efficacy of articaine and prilocaine local anaesthesia for pulpotomy of maxillary and mandibular primary molars. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 12(2):117-22, 2011.

20. Sharaf AA. Evaluation of mandibular infiltration versus block anesthesia in pediatric dentistry. ASDC J Dent Child. 64(4):276-81, 1997.

21. Gaffen AS, Haas DA. Retrospective review of voluntary reports of nonsurgical paresthesia in dentistry. J Can Dent Assoc 75: 579, 2009.

22. Garisto GA, Gaffen AS, Lawrence HP, Tenenbaum HC, Haas DA. Occurrence of paresthesia after dental local anesthetic administration in the United States. J Am Dent Assoc. 141: 836–844, 2010.

23. Yapp KE, Hopcraft MS, Parashos P. Articaine: a review of the literature. Br Dent J. 210(7):323-9, 2011.

24. Baroni DB1, Franz-Montan M, Cogo K, Berto LA, Volpato MC, Novaes PD, Groppo FC. Effect of articaine on mental nerve anterior portion: histological analysis in rats. Acta Odontol Scand. 71(1):82-7, 2013.

25. Adewumi A, Hall M, Guelmann M, Riley J. The incidence of adverse reactions following 4% septocaine (articaine) in children. Pediatr Dent. 30(5):424-8, 2008.

26. Malamed SF, Gagnon S, Leblanc D. A comparison between Articaine HCl and Lidocaine HCl in pediatric dental patients. Pediatr Dent. 22:4, 307-11, 2000.