Comparing the Effectiveness of Articaine Mandibular Infiltration vs. Lidocaine IANB in Pediatric Patients

Aim: To compare the effectiveness of 2% Lidocaine block versus 4% Articaine infiltration for anesthetizing primary mandibular molars (PMM). Methods: The study included 40 subjects, ages 4-10, requiring restorative dental treatment of PMM. A random digit table method was used to assign participants to the Articaine or Lidocaine group. A single designated operator anesthetized all subjects. Blinded to the anesthetic used, other study investigators (trained and calibrated)completed the operative dental treatment. A blood pressure monitor was used during procedure. Modified Behavioral Pain Scales (MBPS) were used to assess physical responses towards anesthetic administration and dental treatment. At the end of the visit, participants completed the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Response Scale (PRS) for feedback on their own perception of pain. Results: No difference found in age, race, or gender for both study groups. Articaine infiltration has similar clinical success as Lidocaine block. Frequency of post-operative complications, such as lip biting, was similar between groups. Blood pressure values were not statistically significant while average treatment pulse was statistically higher but not clinically significant for the Articaine group. Average PRS scores were higher for Lidocaine (3.1) vs. Articaine (1.4), however, it was not statistically significant. Observable behavior via MBPS scores were statistically significant (P=.002, P=.003) indicating increased pain on administration for the Lidocaine group. Conclusions: Articaine infiltration is as effective as Lidocaine block for restorative treatment of PMM and is associated with less pain on administration. Therefore, Articaine infiltration can be routinely recommended for restorative care of PMM.