Article Menu

Export Article

More by Authors Links

Article Data

  • Views 2043
  • Dowloads 158

Original Research

Open Access

Mandibular Block or Maxillary Infiltration: Does it Influence Children’s Opposition to a Subsequent Dental Visit?

  • Ram D1,*,
  • Amir E1
  • Keren R1
  • Shapira J 1
  • Davidovich E1

1Department of Pediatric Dentistry, The Hebrew University Hadassah School of Dental Medicine, P.O. Box 12272, Jerusalem, Israel.

DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.36.3.n2x8m38866487020 Vol.36,Issue 3,May 2012 pp.245-250

Published: 01 May 2012

*Corresponding Author(s): Ram D E-mail: dianar@ekmd.huji.ac.il

PDF (177.32 kB) View Full-text

Abstract

Local anesthesia by mandibular block or maxillary infiltration is commonly administered to children receiving dental treatment of primary molars. Discomfort, when presenting, most often involves the lower lip. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether children would be more opposed to attending a dental treatment following anesthesia by mandibular block than by maxillary infiltration. Methods: Each of 102 children in two age groups: 3 to 5 years, and 6 to 9 years, received the two types of local anesthesia at dental appointments one week apart. Their opposition to attending a subsequent appointment was assessed by parent report. Results: More adverse reactions were observed during and following anesthesia with mandibular block than with maxillary infiltration. Few of the children in either age group expressed opposition to attend a dental visit after receiving mandibular block or maxillary infiltration in the previous visit. Conclusions: Though more adverse reactions were observed in children following mandibular block than maxillary infiltration, this did not result in increased opposition to attend a subsequent dental appointment.

Cite and Share

Ram D,Amir E,Keren R,Shapira J ,Davidovich E. Mandibular Block or Maxillary Infiltration: Does it Influence Children’s Opposition to a Subsequent Dental Visit?. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2012. 36(3);245-250.

URL:

https://www.jjocpd.com/articles/10.17796/jcpd.36.3.n2x8m38866487020

References

1. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, Reference Manual. Guideline on Behavior guidance for the pediatric dental patient. 10; 31(6): 133–140, 2009.

2. Versloot J, Veerkamp JS, Hoogstraten J. Children’s self-reported pain at the dentist. Pain, 137: 389–394, 2008.

3. Malamed SF, Handbook of local anesthesia, 4th Edition. St. Louis: Mosby Inc. 1997.

4. Frankl SN, Shiere FR, Fogels HR. Should the parent remain with the child in the dental operatory? ASDC J Dent Child, 29: 150–63, 1962.

5. Adewumi A, Hall M, Guelmann M, Riley J. The incidence of adverse reactions following 4% Septocaine (Articaine) in children. Pediatr Dent, 30: 424–42, 2008.

6. Taddio A, Nulman I, Goldbach M, Ipp M. Use of lidocaine-prilocaine cream for vaccination pain in infants. J Pediatr, 124: 643–648, 1994.

7. Ram D, Amir E: Comparison of Articaine 4% and Lidocaine 2% in Paediatric Dental Patients–Int J Paediat Dent, 16: 252–256, 2006.

8. College C, Feigal R, Wandera A, Strange M. Bilateral versus unilateral mandibular block anesthesia in a pediatric population. Pediatr Dent, 22: 453–457, 2000.

9. Acs G, Drazner E. The incidence of postoperative pain and analgesic usage in children. ASDC J Dent Child, 59: 48–52, 1992.

10. Ram D, Peretz B: Reactions of children to maxillary infiltration and mandibular block. Pediatr Dent, 23: 343–346, 2001.

11. Arnrup K, Broberg AG, Berggren U, Bodin L. Lack of cooperation in pediatric dentistry—the role of child personality characteristics. Pediatr Dent, 24: 119–128, 2002.

Submission Turnaround Time

Top