Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the efficacy of 4% articaine as buccal infiltration and 2% lidocaine as a nerve block for painful dental procedures in the maxillary and mandibular arch. STUDY DESIGN: The study was carried out in 40 children (6 to 12 years) who needed local anesthesia for the dental treatment. The subjects were randomly divided into two groups (A & B) based on the arch involved. Group A and group B consisted of 20 individuals randomly receiving lignocaine nerve block and articaine infiltration at an interval of 1 week in the maxillary arch and mandibular arch, respectively. Pain during the administration of anesthetic agents, intra-operative pain, and the onset of anesthesia was recorded for both the arches. RESULT: Pain during the administration of anesthetic agent was more with nerve block than infiltration in both maxillary arch (p=0.001) as well as mandibular arch (p=0.06). Intra-operative pain was similar for both the anesthetic agents in both the arches. Articaine showed a significantly shorter onset of anesthesia in both the arches. CONCLUSION: Efficacy of 4% articaine with infiltration and 2% lidocaine with nerve block was found to be similar. Hence, articaine infiltration can be used as an alternative to the lignocaine nerve block.
Agarwal et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: