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.

Background: Pain control is a crucial aspect of pediatric dentistry for patient management. Thermo-mechanical devices (Buzzy TM Pain Care Labs, USA) work on the concept of vibration and cooling and have shown promising results in pain control during local anesthesia in pediatric dentistry. On the other hand, audio distraction has also been used for pain management. The amount of pain endured is determined by the patient's perception and attentiveness. Thus, if audio function is added to the thermomechanical device it might increase its efficiency. Hence, the present study aimed to compare pain on injection using a thermo-mechanical device with and without audio during inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) injection in children aged 5-10 years old. Methods: Twenty-eight children aged between 5 and 10 indicated for IANB were included in this randomized study. Children who were undergoing the dental procedure were divided into 2 groups, with 14 children in each group. The study group was the thermo-mechanical device with audio distraction; the control group was the thermo-mechanical device without audio distraction. IANB was administered. Subjective pain evaluation was performed using the Wong–Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (WBFPR) and objective pain evaluation was done using the Faces, Leg, Activity, Consolability, Cry (FLACC) scale. Results: The outcome depicted a significant reduction in pain on injection for both objective and subjective evaluations in the thermo-mechanical device with an audio distraction group. Conclusions Less pain on injection was observed, when a thermo-mechanical device was used with audio distraction for IANB procedures.