Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Kathryn Jorgenson,
Dr Ben Cole
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
© 2019, European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry.Aim: To determine whether there is a clinical difference between an inferior dental block (IDB) using 2% lidocaine and a buccal infiltration (BI) using 4% articaine, when anaesthetising mandibular first permanent molars in children. Methods: Patients aged 8–15 years who required invasive dental treatment on a lower molar tooth were randomised. The patient and dental operator were blind to the type of LA used. The patient used a visual analogue scale to record their experience of pain during injection and treatment. Results: Twenty six teeth were anaesthetised (13 articaine, 13 lidocaine). When using an IDB, all treatment was completed successfully. On one occasion, anaesthesia was deemed unsuccessful when using a BI of articaine. There was no statistical difference in the mean VAS for the perceived pain of injection or treatment. Conclusion: This study showed that invasive dental treatment on a mandibular molar tooth can be completed successfully in children using a BI of articaine. In addition, the perceived pain of injection and treatment when using a BI of articaine is comparable to an IDB with lidocaine.
Author(s): Jorgenson K, Burbridge L, Cole B
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry
Pages: ePub ahead of print
Online publication date: 12/12/2019
Acceptance date: 14/11/2019
ISSN (print): 1818-6300
ISSN (electronic): 1996-9805
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric