Comparison of anaesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine primary buccal infiltration versus 2% lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block in symptomatic mandibular first molar teeth

Objective: To evaluate success of pulpal anaesthesia of mandibular 1st molar by using 4% articaine in buccal infiltration versus 2% lidocaine in inferior alveolar nerve block

Study Design: Randomized control trial

Place and Duration of Study: Department of Operative Dentistry, Sardar Begum Dental College, Gandhara University, Peshawar, from March to August 2014

Methodology: One hundred and fifty-six emergency patients, who had 1st molar diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis, participated in the study. Subjects were divided into two groups by random allocation. One group received 4% articaine buccal infiltration and the other group received inferior alveolar nerve block of 2% lidocaine. Subjects' self-reported pain response was recorded on Heft Parker Visual Analogue Scale after local anaesthetic administration during access cavity preparation and pulp extirpation

Results: Mean age of subjects was 31.46 +/- 10.994 years. The success rate of 4% buccal infiltration was 76.9%; whereas the success rate of 2% lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block was 62.8%. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups

Conclusion: 4% articaine buccal infiltration can be considered a viable alternative to 2% lidocaine inferior alveolar nerve block in securing successful pulpal anaesthesia for endodontic therapy

Comparison of effectiveness of 4% articaine buccal infiltration versus inferior alveolar nerve block in symptomatic mandibular 1[st] molar tooth

Objective: to evaluate the pulpal anaesthesia of mandibular 1st molar by using 4% articaine in two different techniques i-e buccal infiltration and inferior alveolar nerve block

Methodology: ninty emergency patients who had 1st molar diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis participated in the study. Subjects were randomly allo-cated into two groups One group received 4% articaine buccal infiltration and the other group received inferior alveolar nerve block of 4% articaine. Subjects' self reported pain response was recorded on Heft Parker Visual Analogue Scale after local anesthetic administration during access cavity preparation and pulp extirpation

Results: mean age of subjects was 32.96 years +/- 10.105 years. The success rate of 4% articaine buccal infiltration was 71.11% whereas the success rate of 4% articaine inferior alveolar nerve block was 64.4%. There was no statistically significant difference between two groups

Conclusion: since there was no difference between the two procedures 4% articaine buccal infiltration can be considered a viable alternative to inferior alveolar nerve block in securing successful pulpal anesthesia for endodontic therapy