RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
Introduction: Even after the invention of the modern injection techniques, palatal injection still remains a painful experience for patients, and this pain is attributed to the presence of rich nerve complement and displacement of palatal mucosa during anesthesia. Objective: The aim of the present study was to demonstrate if lidocaine HCl could provide palatal anesthesia if given buccally during maxillary tooth removal without the need for a palatal injection. Materials and Methods: The study group consisted of 75 patients, and 25 were controls. All the patients in the study group had unilateral extractions. In 75 patients, 2 ml of 2% lidocaine HCl with 1:80,000 epinephrine was injected into the buccal vestibule of tooth indicated for extraction without palatal injection. After 8 min, the extraction of maxillary tooth was carried out. Twenty-five subjects in the control group underwent same protocol with palatal injection. All the patients completed a faces pain scale (FPS) and a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) after extraction. Statistical Analysis Used: Unpaired t test and Chi-square test. Results: According to VAS and FPS scores, when comparison was carried out between permanent maxillary tooth removal with and without palatal injection, the difference in the pain levels were not statistically significant (P>0.05). Conclusion: The extraction of permanent maxillary tooth is possible by depositing 2 mL of lidocaine to the buccal vestibule of the tooth without the need for palatal anesthesia.