Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2023 Aug 1. doi: 10.1007/s40368-023-00827-w. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
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 ).
PMID:37526883 | DOI:10.1007/s40368-023-00827-w
