| Background: One of the most impressive factors discouraging many people from seeking dental treatment
is the fear of experiencing pain during dental procedures. Thus, the use of an effective method for pain
control is vital in this regard. Articaine, which has an additional ester and thiophene groups that increase
its biosolubility and permeability compared to older anesthetic agents, can be more effective on inducing
anesthesia during dental treatment. Given the inconsistent currently available information on this concept,
the present study was designed to compare the efficacy of articaine with that of lidocaine on pain control
during pulp treatment of deciduous molar.
Methods and materials: In this cross-sectional study, 38 patients who needed pulpotomy in both
mandibular second molar of primary teeth were randomly divided into two groups, using the Randlist
software. In the first meeting, infiltration with articaine 4% (epinephrine 1/100 000) was performed for
all patients in group 1 on the left side of the mandible. At the next appointment, inferior alveolar nerve
block was done with lidocaine 2% on the right side of the mandible (epinephrine 1/80 000). Notably, for all patients in the second group, the first injection was performed on the right second primary molar with
articaine 4% (epinephrine 1/100 000), and inferior alveolar nerve block was also done with lidocaine 2% on
the left side of the mandible (epinephrine 1/80 000).
Results: Of the 38 patients included in the current study, 10 (26.3%) subjects in the lidocaine group and
nine (23.6%) in the articaine group complained of pain during their dental treatment procedures, but this
difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: According to the findings of this study, buccal infiltration of 4% articaine had a comparable
anesthetic outcome to that of 2% lidocaine for inferior alveolar nerve block in pulp treatment of the second
primary mandibular molars. |