Anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lignocaine in root canal treatment of teeth with molar incisor hypomineralization.

Ann Mary Thomas, Sajeena George, S Anandaraj
{"title":"Anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine versus 2% lignocaine in root canal treatment of teeth with molar incisor hypomineralization.","authors":"Ann Mary Thomas, Sajeena George, S Anandaraj","doi":"10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_375_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) is considered the cornerstone in achieving anesthesia for mandibular molars. However, failure of routine lignocaine IANB to achieve profound anesthesia of the pulp has been reported in patients with molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH). Articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 has proven to provide total pain relief during most dental procedures.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study aimed to assess and compare the pain perception level in children using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) during root canal treatment after administering 4% articaine buccal infiltration (BI), 4% articaine IANB, and 2% lignocaine IANB.</p><p><strong>Subjects and methods: </strong>Twenty-seven children aged 8-12 years, requiring root canal treatment of mandibular first permanent molars with MIH were randomly allocated into three groups - 4% articaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) BI, 4% articaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) IANB, and 2% lignocaine IANB. The efficacy of the anesthetic was determined by rating the pain perception of the child using a VAS.</p><p><strong>Statistical analysis used: </strong>The scores marked by the children on the VAS were recorded and were statistically analyzed. Data were entered into Microsoft excel data sheet and were analyzed using SPSS for Windows version 17.0.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients anesthetized with 4% articaine IANB presented lesser pain scores compared to IANB with 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine BI on access opening and instrumentation of the root canals.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>4% articaine IANB has better anesthetic efficacy than 4% articaine BI and 2% lignocaine IANB in anesthetising mandibular first permanent molars with MIH.</p>","PeriodicalId":101311,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry","volume":"41 4","pages":"316-321"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_375_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: Inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) is considered the cornerstone in achieving anesthesia for mandibular molars. However, failure of routine lignocaine IANB to achieve profound anesthesia of the pulp has been reported in patients with molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH). Articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100,000 has proven to provide total pain relief during most dental procedures.

Aims: This study aimed to assess and compare the pain perception level in children using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) during root canal treatment after administering 4% articaine buccal infiltration (BI), 4% articaine IANB, and 2% lignocaine IANB.

Subjects and methods: Twenty-seven children aged 8-12 years, requiring root canal treatment of mandibular first permanent molars with MIH were randomly allocated into three groups - 4% articaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) BI, 4% articaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) IANB, and 2% lignocaine IANB. The efficacy of the anesthetic was determined by rating the pain perception of the child using a VAS.

Statistical analysis used: The scores marked by the children on the VAS were recorded and were statistically analyzed. Data were entered into Microsoft excel data sheet and were analyzed using SPSS for Windows version 17.0.

Results: Patients anesthetized with 4% articaine IANB presented lesser pain scores compared to IANB with 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine BI on access opening and instrumentation of the root canals.

Conclusion: 4% articaine IANB has better anesthetic efficacy than 4% articaine BI and 2% lignocaine IANB in anesthetising mandibular first permanent molars with MIH.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
4% 阿替卡因与 2% 木酚卡因在磨牙切牙低矿化根管治疗中的麻醉效果。
背景:下牙槽神经阻滞(IANB)被认为是实现下颌磨牙麻醉的基石。然而,有报道称,在臼齿切牙矿化度过低(MIH)的患者中,常规的木质碱IANB无法实现对牙髓的深度麻醉。目的:本研究旨在使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)评估和比较儿童在根管治疗过程中使用 4% 阿替卡因口腔浸润(BI)、4% 阿替卡因 IANB 和 2% 木质素 IANB 后的疼痛感觉水平:27名年龄在8-12岁、需要对下颌第一恒磨牙进行根管治疗并患有MIH的儿童被随机分配到三组--4%阿替卡因(1:100,000肾上腺素)BI组、4%阿替卡因(1:100,000肾上腺素)IANB组和2%木质素IANB组。麻醉剂的疗效通过使用 VAS 对患儿的痛觉进行评分来确定:记录儿童在 VAS 上的评分并进行统计分析。数据输入 Microsoft excel 数据表,并使用 SPSS for Windows 17.0 版本进行分析:结果:与使用 2% 利多卡因和 4% 阿替卡因 BI 的 IANB 相比,使用 4% 阿替卡因 IANB 麻醉的患者在根管通路开放和器械操作时的疼痛评分较低:在麻醉下颌第一恒磨牙MIH时,4%阿替卡因IANB的麻醉效果优于4%阿替卡因BI和2%利多卡因IANB。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Challenges faced by dentists during provision of oral health care in children and adolescents with special health-care needs: A scoping review. Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of various intracanal medicament in young permanent teeth: An in vivo study. Comparison of intranasal ketamine with intranasal midazolam and dexmedetomidine combination in pediatric dental patients for procedural sedation: A crossover study. Effect of oil pulling on the Streptococcus mutans concentation in plaque around orthodontic brackets -A prospective clinical study. Effect of silver diamine fluoride application on the microtensile bond strength of three commonly used restorative materials in primary teeth: An ultrastructural study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1