ABSTRACT
Background: Although less painful injection techniques have been developed, most individuals still find palatal injection to be unpleasant. Aims: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of single buccal infiltration versus conventional buccal and palatal infiltration for the removal of maxillary molar teeth. Fifty patie Materials and Methods: nts participated in a prospective randomized, split-mouth study, Group 1: 4% Articaine HCL infiltration – Only buccal, Group 2: 2% Lignocaine HCL – Buccal and palatal infiltration. Checking VAS score and Facial pain scale during Infiltration and during extraction. Factor analysis was used to determine the significance of the difference in mean scores between the two groups using both the independent sample t-test. Even though the Results: difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05), patients in the articaine group reported much less discomfort during having their vital maxillary molars extracted compared to the lignocaine group. As was previously m Conclusion: entioned, it is feasible to avoid the palatal injection while removing molars from the maxilla. Specifically, the extraction of the upper molars, and buccal infiltration with articaine is a viable alternative to the use of traditional local anaesthetic.