Comparative Evaluation of 4% Articaine and 2% Lignocaine Anesthetic Agents in Children: A Split-mouth Randomized Control Trial.

AIM

The objective of the present study is to assess and compare the effectiveness of two different anesthetic agents, namely, 4% articaine and 2% lignocaine, in the extraction of primary molar teeth in children.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 25 children requiring bilateral extractions of primary molar, with extraction performed on one side with 4% articaine and the contralateral side extraction with 2% lignocaine at two separate appointments. The anesthetic efficacy was evaluated objectively by assessing pain and the child's behavior at baseline, during injection and during extraction using the sound, eye, and motor (SEM) scale objectively, and subjectively using the faces pain rating scale (FPS). The data were then compiled and subjected to statistical analysis.

RESULTS

On statistical analysis, there was no statistically significant difference found between the two anesthetic agents during extraction of primary molar teeth, whereas a statistically significant difference was present between articaine and lignocaine during local anesthesia administration on the FPS scale. Also, there was no statistically significant difference found on SEM scale during the procedure between the two anesthetic agents.

CONCLUSION

Articaine can effectively be used as an alternative to lignocaine and inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) where a long-term procedure is required.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

In pediatric dentistry, articaine and lignocaine play a very important roles as local anesthetic agents, offering clinicians effective tools to manage pain and discomfort during dental procedures for children. How to cite this article: Grover J, Grover R, Gupta S, Comparative Evaluation of 4% Articaine and 2% Lignocaine Anesthetic Agents in Children: A Split-mouth Randomized Control Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(10):950-954.