Comparison of Articaine Mandibular Infiltration to.pdf
thesisposted on 30.05.2020, 04:30 by Ivan Liang Zhang
This study was a prospective, single-blind, randomized control clinical trial with parallel design that aimed to investigate the effectiveness of mandibular infiltration with four percent articaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) versus that of inferior alveolar nerve block with two percent lidocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) when administered for restorative treatment of deciduous (or primary) mandibular molars (DMM). Thirty subjects, between four and ten years of age, fulfilling strict inclusion and exclusion eligibility criteria, were enrolled and randomly assigned into two study groups: Lidocaine group (control) or Articaine group (variable). A single, designated operator using consistent anesthetic administration techniques provided all local anesthesia (LA). Clinical outcome data was collected to assess the perception of pain using two different validated rating systems. The Modified Behavioral Pain Scale (MBPS), exhibiting numerical categories of facial expression, crying, and movement, was scored by two kinds of trained and calibrated examiners who were blinded to the LA type. Examiners A (dental assistant) observed and rated the subjects’ behavior during LA administration. Examiner B (pediatric dental resident) performed dental treatment and thereafter rated the observed subjects’ behavior throughout the overall appointment. The Wong-Baker FACES® Pain Rating Scale (WBS) was used by the subjects at the end of the appointment to self-report their own level of experienced pain throughout the whole appointment. Blood pressure and pulse of the subjects were also recorded throughout the appointment as quantitative measures of pain. Data was statistically analyzed to determine if there were any clinical or behavioral differences in the effectiveness of either local anesthetic agent administered via their respective techniques when performing restorative treatment on DMM.