Buffered articaine infiltration for primary maxillary molar extractions: a randomized controlled study
10.17245/jdapm.2022.22.5.387
- Author:
Parag DHAKE
1
;
Devendra NAGPAL
;
Purva CHAUDHARI
;
Gagandeep LAMBA
;
Kavita HOTWANI
;
Prabhat SINGH
Author Information
1. Department of Paediatric and Preventive Dentistry, VSPM's Dental College and Research Centre, Nagpur, India
- Publication Type:Original Article
- From:Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
2022;22(5):387-394
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Background:Dental pain management is an important aspect of patient management in pediatric dentistry. Articaine is considered the most successful anesthetic agent for infiltration anesthesia. Buffered articaine has been observed to have faster onset and longer duration of action with less pain on injection. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare pain on injection, onset of action, and pain during extraction using buffered (using Sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO 3 )) and non-buffered 4% articaine (with 1:100000 adrenaline) infiltrations for primary maxillary molar extractions in 4–10-year-old children.
Methods:Seventy children who required extraction of maxillary primary molars were enrolled in this triple-blind randomized study. Children undergoing extraction were randomly divided into two groups, with 35 in each group. The study group was the buffered articaine group; the control group was the non-buffered articaine group. Buccal and palatal infiltrations were administered with either buffered or non-buffered articaine. Subjective evaluation was done for pain on injection, pain during extraction using Wong–Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBFPR) and onset of anesthesia in seconds. Pain on injection, pain during extraction were objectively evaluated using Sound Eye Motor (SEM) scale and onset of anesthesia was also evaluated objectively by pricking with sharp dental probe.
Results:The outcome was, significantly less pain on injection and significantly faster onset of anesthesia with significantly less pain during extraction for both subjective and objective evaluations in the buffered articaine group. Subgroup analysis was also performed and it showed variable results, with only significant difference for WBFPR scores in age subgroup 4–7 years for palatal infiltration.
Conclusion:Less pain on injection, faster onset of anesthesia, and less pain during extraction were observed when buffered articaine was used for maxillary primary molar extraction.
